HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-014-20Clarington
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: September 14, 2020
Submitted By: Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO
File Number:
Report Number: CLD-014-20
By-law Number:
Resolution#: JC-088-20,
C-373-20, C-375-20
Report Subject: Ward Boundary Review — Interim Report
Recommendation(s):
1. That Report CLD-014-20 be received for information.
Municipality of Clarington
Report CLD-014-20
Report Overview
Page 2
This Report provides background information on Clarington's Ward Boundary Review,
including the Interim Report from the consultants and public engagement. The Interim
Report includes options from the consultants, based on information gathered to date, on
different approaches to ward boundaries within Clarington. This Report also contains
information on the next steps of the project, including public engagement and final report
timing.
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 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.
were awarded the contract.
Municipality of Clarington
Report CLD-014-20
2. Process
Page 3
2.1 Shortly after the RFP was awarded, project planning, information gathering, and Council
and community engagement began on the project.
2.2 Staff are acutely aware of the greater need, due to COVID-19 restrictions, to reach the
public to include them in this process. To that end, the following highlights the public
engagement efforts to date:
• Webpage
• Whiteboard Animation Video
• Survey
• Public Information Centres (PICs)
• Print Advertisements (6 weekly publications in each of the two local newspapers)
• News Articles
• Press Release
• Social Media
2.3 Staff from the Municipal Clerk's Department and Planning Services Department worked
with the consultants to provide background information including historical (i.e. 1996),
GIS maps, and population information.
2.4 The result of the work to date is the Interim Report prepared by Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd (Attachment 1) attached for information, containing options for ward
boundaries.
3. Next Steps
3.1 Although legislatively, 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.
3.2 Staff will continue to work with the consultants to ensure the public has every
opportunity, through public engagement initiatives, to comment on the options
proposed.
3.3 The public will be given the opportunity to review the options proposed by the
consultants until the end of November.
Municipality of Clarington
Report CLD-014-20
Page 4
3.4 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. will gather the public input on the options and is
expected to prepare a final report to Council at the January 4, 2021 General
Government Committee meeting.
3.5 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.
4. Concurrence
None
5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that this Report be received for information.
Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Deputy Clerk, 905-623-3379 ext. 2103 or
jgallagher@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 —Ward Boundary Review — Interim Report
Interested Parties:
List of interested parties (i.e. those that have subscribed to the webpage) is available in the
Municipal Clerk's Department.
Attachment 1 to Report CLD-014-20
September, 2020
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
info@watsonecon.ca
In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams & Dr. Zachary Spicer
Table of Contents
Page
1.
Background.........................................................................................................1
2.
Study Objective..................................................................................................1
3.
Project Structure and Timeline..........................................................................2
4.
Public Consultation............................................................................................3
5.
What We Heard...................................................................................................
4
6.
Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure.............................................................
6
6.1 Representation by Population....................................................................7
6.2 Population Trends......................................................................................
9
6.3 Community Access and Connections......................................................
11
6.4 Geographic and Topographical Features .................................................
12
6.5 Community or Diversity of Interests.........................................................
13
6.6 Effective Representation..........................................................................
15
7.
Alternative Ward Boundary Options...............................................................18
7.1 Further Considerations............................................................................
26
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
1. Background
The Municipality of Clarington has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in
association with Dr. Robert J. Williams and Dr. Zachary Spicer, hereafter referred to as
the Consultant Team, to conduct a comprehensive and independent Ward Boundary
Review (W.B.R.).
The primary purpose of the study is to prepare Clarington Council to make decisions on
whether to maintain the existing ward structure or to adopt an alternative. Other matters
are integral to a comprehensive review:
• What guiding principles will be observed in the design of the wards?
• Is it appropriate to consider changing the composition (size) of Council as part of
the same review?
• Is it appropriate to consider dissolving the wards to elect councillors at -large (in
what the Municipal Act calls a "general vote" system)?
This review is premised on the democratic expectation that municipal representation in
Clarington would be effective, equitable, and an accurate reflection of the contemporary
distribution of communities and people across the Municipality.
2. Study Objective
The project has a number of key objectives:
• 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 guiding principles adopted for the study;
• Develop and conduct an appropriate consultation process in accordance with
Clarington's public engagement practices during the coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) public health emergency to ensure community support for the review
and its outcome;
• Prepare population projections for the development and evaluation of alternative
electoral structures for the 2022, 2026 and 2030 municipal elections; and
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
• 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.
In July 2020, the Consultant Team provided the community with a Discussion Paper
that set out the basic electoral arrangements in Clarington, Council's legislative
authority to modify electoral arrangements in the Municipality, a sketch of potential
modifications open to Council (the size of Council, the method of election for councillors,
alternative ward configurations) and core principles that could be considered by a
municipality when establishing or modifying its ward system.'
The purpose of this Interim Report is to provide:
• A summary of the work completed to date;
• A summary of the information received from the public engagement sessions and
tools, such as the survey and website; and
• A series of initial ward boundary options for consideration.
After the release of this report, the public will once again be engaged to provide
feedback on each alternative model.
3. Project Structure and Timeline
The W.B.R. commenced in May 2020. Work completed to -date includes:
• Research and data compilation;
• Interviews with Councillors, the Mayor, and municipal staff; and
• Public consultation on the existing ward structure.
Work on the W.B.R. has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Following public
health guidelines on gatherings, the Consultant Team conducted the initial round of
public consultation (four sessions) electronically. Interviews with staff and Council, and
meetings with the Clerk's office concerning this study have also happened virtually.
' https://www.clarington.net/en/town-hall/resources/Clarington-2020-Ward-Boundary-
Review-Discussion-Paper.pdf
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
4. Public Consultation
The W.B.R. incorporated a public engagement component that was delivered virtually
and designed to:
• Inform residents of Clarington about the reason for the W.B.R. and the key
factors that were considered in the review; and
• Engage the residents in a manner that provides valuable input to the evaluation
of the existing ward structure and development of alternative ward boundaries.
Following public health guidelines put in place following the COVID-19 outbreak, four
public open houses were conducted virtually on July 8, 2020 and July 15, 2020 with two
one -hour virtual consultation sessions each day. The Consultant Team's presentation
and other information about the review, including the audio recording of the Public
Meetings, is available on the Municipality's website:
www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview.
Through the public consultation sessions, a survey, and the project website's online
comment/feedback form, participants were invited to provide their input/opinions with
respect to the following:
• Existing Ward Structure — Strengths and weaknesses of the current ward
structure.
• Guiding Principles — Which Guiding Principles should be given the greatest
priority in the development of ward boundaries?
The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are
reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the preliminary set of
ward options. While public input from consultation provides valuable insight into the
review, it is not relied on exclusively. The Consultant Team utilized the public input in
conjunction with its professional expertise and experience in W.B.R.s along with best
practices to develop the preliminary options presented herein. The public will have
another opportunity in the near future to comment on alternative ward system options.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
5. What We Heard
As discussed above, the Consultant Team has solicited feedback from staff, Council,
and the public in the Municipality of Clarington through three main avenues:
• Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff;
• Four one -hour public engagement sessions; and
• A survey and engagement website where comments were collected.
There was a moderate level of public participation in the W.B.R. public consultation
process. Attendance at the public engagement sessions ranged from 7 to 12 persons
during each session, where a presentation was shown followed by a question and
answer session and discussions. The survey received 191 responses. Through each
avenue, the Consultant Team has heard a number of consistent and important points
about the current ward system and the principles used to guide this W.B.R.
1. Those living in Clarington strongly identify with their individual communities within
the Municipality. For instance, someone living in Bowmanville may have a strong
affinity for Bowmanville and a stronger identity as a member of that community
than with the Municipality of Clarington itself. Maintaining identifiable geographic
communities within single wards should be an important consideration when
analyzing alternatives to the current ward system.
2. 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. While the Consultant Team has
been told the current councillors do an admirable job representing both rural and
urban parts of their wards, it is not a foregone conclusion that the same would
necessarily hold true for future Councils. Wards are not built around incumbent
office -holders.
3. The role of Regional Councillors is not always well known to some members of
the community. Having Regional Councillors attached to a specific location (that
is, to specific wards) has proven helpful administratively and has allowed
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
residents to have a more direct connection to those representing them. Regional
Councillors are also strong advocates for their wards on both the Local and
Regional Councils and ease the workload of Local Councillors. They tend to
have a larger geographic focus than Local Councillors and are able to provide a
different perspective on Council deliberations. This W.B.R. cannot make any
recommendations on the number of Regional Councillors,' but there are
indications that Clarington has been well served by having Regional Councillors
attached to wards.
4. Adding wards is not explicitly in the mandate of this W.B.R. The Consultant
Team, however, has heard that adding additional voices to the Council table may
be prudent in the future to contribute to the democratic needs of the community.
Given councillors in Clarington are part-time, the cost to add councillors would be
modest and would likely increase the quality of representation across the
community. A ward system with an additional ward or two may be reasonable to
consider as an alternative to the current model. Given the Consultant Team has
heard the benefits of having Regional Councillors attached to specific wards, it
may make sense to consider additional wards in even numbers so that each
Regional Councillor can represent an equal number of wards on Clarington
Council.
5. In the survey conducted in July 2020, respondents were encouraged to indicate
the two principles they believed should be given the greatest priority during the
W.B.R. Of the six guiding principles (described in the Discussion Paper and
below) the survey found strong support for representation by population (46%)
and effective representation (41 %). Much less emphasis was placed upon
geographic and topographical figures (26%), community access and connections
(23%), and population trends (29%). As noted in the Discussion Paper, none of
the principles is necessarily more important than another and they may
occasionally conflict with one another. Getting a sense of the priority the
community places on these principles aids in the work of the W.B.R.
1 The authority to adjust the allocation of Regional Council seats is assigned to the
Regional Council not to lower -tier municipalities like Clarington. Municipal Act, 2001,
section 218. Durham Regional Council has affirmed that Clarington will elect two
Regional Councillors in 2022.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 1 — Priority Assigned to Guiding Principles
Effective representation
41%
Community or diversity of
interest (recognize
community groupings/avoid
fragmenting communities of
interest)
35%
Geographical & topographical featui
(easily recognizable, make use of
permanent natural features)
26%
Municipalitv
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%
6. The majority of those responding to the survey come from Wards 2 and 4 (30%
each). It should be noted that there is some difference when the survey results
are broken down by ward. Those in Ward 4 — the most rural of the wards — were
much less inclined to value representation by population as highly as a guiding
principle. Only 24% of the responses from Ward 4 selected representation by
population as a top priority. Ward 4 respondents were also much more inclined
to value community or diversity of interests as their preferred guiding principle
(54%, as compared to 35% of the Municipality as a whole). This result suggests
that those in the more rural Ward 4 are much more inclined to prefer having their
communities grouped in the same ward, even if it comes at the expense of
balancing the population of the Municipality across all the wards.
6. Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure
The survey conducted as part of the initial phase of public consultation also asked
respondents to assess the current wards in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
These responses can be used to add depth to the preliminary evaluation of the existing
ward structure included in the Discussion Paper that addressed the wards in terms of
the core principles.
The current wards are presented in Figure 2 for reference purposes.
Figure 2 — Existing Ward Structure
TOWNSHIP
OF SCUGOG [j� g%r�
crrr of
KAWARTHA
L A K E 5
— a Regia
Sy
Regional Rd 3
o
x
=
t
W
40
407
'Taunts
cF�
418
=
Oy
a
o
Nash Road—
=�'C
22 Rey�ona
L Hig
0
E
�
c
Moor Street
� i
a_ m k"4
418
401 o= r Bass lin
120
h`c
a
I
scion Rd 3
-a
7—,1 ,1f 115
5
115 35
417
Slam
c
.-1— Rd
115 35
401
Ward 1 Ward 3
Ward 2
Lake Ontario
Ganaraska Road
e,Y Regional High Way-2'-"'J""
Ward 4 I i
IN
6.1 Representation by Population
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
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
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 25,725.1
Table 1 — Population by Existing Ward, 2016 and 2020
1
30,763
1.34
32,030
1.25 O +
2
27,651
1.20
O +
33,700
1.31
3
17,675
0.77
O -
OR -
23,040
19,890
17,280
102,900
0.77 0-
4 16,071
0.70
Optimal
0.67
Total 92,160
Optimal 25,725
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.
1 Population and growth trends for Clarington are included in the Discussion Paper,
pages 11 to 13.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
There is also a large disparity in the wards represented by Regional Councillors. The
Regional Councillor representing Wards 1 and 2 has over 65,000 residents (using the
2020 population estimate), while the Regional Councillor representing Wards 3 and 4
has less than 38,000, although each has one vote at the Regional Council table.
Among the perspectives gathered in interviews with members of Council and comments
submitted in the survey were several that highlighted this situation, and some are
quoted below:
• "Some wards have a much larger population than others. Shouldn't access to
our local councillors be equitable? If so, the wards need to be changed so that
each ward has roughly the same population."
• "It is unlikely that Wards 3 and 4 will ever catch up in population densities in the
coming decade to match Ward 1 and 2 numbers, therefore Wards 1 and 2 are
representing the majority of the population, which also means that Regional
Councillor for Wards 1 and 2 represents 65,000 residents compared to Regional
Councillor for Wards 3 and 4 represents 37,000 residents."
• "The current system is inadequate in representative the good of the general
elector. It gives too much weight to Wards 3 and 4."
• "Wards should be adjusted to more closely represent population distribution.
Wards 1 and 2 are out of proportion to their population."
• "The wards should be represented by a similar population in each ward. Things
need to change."
• "Should be 20,000 people in each ward in order to effectively manage the affairs
of the ward."
Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents,
the present wards fail to adhere to the representation by population principle.
6.2 Population Trends
The composition of Clarington's ward boundaries should adequately accommodate
future growth and population shifts to maintain the representation by population
principle over time. Clarington is, and has been, growing quite rapidly which spurred
the need for a W.B.R. now. This principle seeks to ensure that a ward design does not
merely "catch up" with such changes but addresses the Municipality's future by giving
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
some weight to projected population growth within the Municipality. In other words, it
encourages the design of wards that will not be out-of-date the day after they are
adopted.
There are restrictions placed upon future growth established through the provincial
growth plan which directs development to established population centres in Clarington.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect growth in the Bowmanville, Courtice, and
Newcastle urban settlement areas.
As just discussed, the population in the current ward structure is already concentrated in
Courtice and Bowmanville, which means that future population growth will not correct
this imbalance. Population disparities throughout the wards would be expected to
worsen through the 2022, 2026 and 2030 election cycles.
Drawing wards with an eye to future population trends was not as highly ranked as
some other principles, but a few respondents believed it needs to be addressed:
• "I feel as Newcastle is a growing town and the other towns in Ward 4 are not
significantly seeing growth, that many of the smaller outlying towns are not being
represented to a complete extent."
• "If anywhere needs additional councillors it will be Wards 1 and 2 since more
people are comprised in the area and growth is subject to occur there."
• "It looks to me like the growth in population and the changes to the demographics
(i.e. age range of the population, etc.) would indicate a need to change the ward
boundaries to reflect the size and demographic of the different areas to address
the specific needs of that area."
• "Wards should be distributed somewhat equally so that there is appropriately
representation, but this can be challenging with the way development is
saturated in particular areas."
Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents,
the present wards are unlikely to ensure that the representation by population principle
can be sustained over the next decade.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
6.3 Community Access and Connections
The representation by population principle presumes that there will be an acceptable
degree of variation, based in part on one of the customary other considerations that is
taken into account in designing wards: "community." The rationale is that electoral
districts should, as far as possible, be cohesive units composed of areas with common
interests related to representation, not just contrived arithmetic divisions of the
Municipality.
Wards should have a "natural" feel to those that live within them, meaning that they
should have established internal communication and transportation linkages and
boundaries should be drawn taking existing connections into mind. This is done to
avoid creating wards that combine communities with dissimilar interests and no obvious
patterns of interaction. This perspective is also important in relation to the "community
or diversity of interests" principle to be discussed below.
Many of Clarington's communities have a rich history, a tradition of self-sufficiency, and
exercise some measure of social autonomy from the rest of the Municipality. Local
identification with, and "allegiances" to, such historic communities would not be erased if
those areas are aligned differently in the future to elect councillors.
Clarington's current wards run from Lake Ontario to the Municipality's northern border,
which means that extensive rural areas and northern hamlets are attached to
communities in the more populated south. Although there are heavily travelled arterial
roadways running north -south that are used as ward boundaries, the two groups of
communities have few natural social or economic connections to one another,
especially in the current Wards 1, 2, and 3. The communities in the northern parts of all
wards probably have more in common in terms of social and economic connections with
each other than they do with communities in the southern part of their own ward.
The current Ward 4 is basically the pre -amalgamation Clarke Township; the existing
settlements (outside Newcastle) are more similar in size to one another and are not as
different from one another as the communities in Wards 1, 2 and 3. If anything, the
areas east of Newcastle and Orono have more in common with communities in rural
Northumberland County.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
A significant proportion of the survey comments highlighted the impact of having
communities from north and south in the same ward (sometimes seen as a rural -urban
mix). As will be discussed below, for some residents this arrangement is a strength not
a weakness. Some of the comments are quoted here:
• "Rural concerns are lumped in with urban voters, all but ensuring rural issues are
not an election issue. Councillors (and frankly the mayor) find it all too easy to
ignore their rural constituents, due to the ratio of urban vs rural votes."
• "Rural needs are different from the urban needs. With most councillors focused
on the urban areas we seem to be the lost population with no voice at the council
table."
• "My daily life, north of concession 8 is VERY different than daily life of family
south of Highway 2. While I have a vested interest in the larger community, I
WANT REPRESENTATION."
• "The north part of Clarington (all wards) is ignored."
It is difficult to argue that the current ward system reflects inherent connections between
all communities.
6.4 Geographic and Topographical Features
Ward boundaries should be easily recognizable and take advantage of natural and built
geographic features. Many of these features already tend to separate communities
within the Municipality, which usually explains their historical use as boundary lines
between existing wards.
The existing wards take advantage of prominent features, such as major transportation
routes (for example, Liberty Street in Bowmanville separating Wards 2 and 3 north of
the 401) and historical markers (the Darlington -Clarke Townline separating Wards 3 and
4 north of the 401). The current boundaries also respect the contemporary "white belt"
areas that lie between Courtice and Bowmanville, and Bowmanville and Newcastle.
Existing ward boundaries have the advantage of being straightforward and easy to
identify since they reflect historical settlement within Clarington and are easily
recognizable features. This principle did not generate many comments but the current
boundaries themselves were seen as a strength of the system, for example: "easy to
see on a map and perhaps remember by streets since lines are straight
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Where possible, such features should be used in future to separate wards to ensure the
ward boundaries are designed in a logical and straight -forward fashion. Simply put, the
markers used as boundaries of the wards north of the 401 now make sense and new
boundaries should be similarly designed.
6.5 Community or Diversity of Interests
The first two principles are based on the number of people who reside in the
Municipality, but people live in a neighbourhood or community that is the most
identifiable geographic point in most people's lives: it is where they make their home.
More importantly, the responsibilities of the Municipality are also closely associated with
where people live, such as roads and their maintenance, the utilities that are connected
to or associated with their dwelling, and the myriad of social, cultural, environmental,
and recreational services are often based on residential communities. Even municipal
taxation is inextricably linked to one's dwelling. Identifying such communities comes
from a recognition that geographic location brings shared perspectives that the
representational process should seek to reflect.
Care should be taken to ensure communities of interest remain intact during the design
of ward boundaries. Such communities represent social and economic groups that
generally have deep historical roots, but they can also be social, economic or religious
in nature, depending on the history and composition of the municipality in question.
The current ward system uses Clarington's three major urban communities as the
nucleus of each ward: Courtice (Ward 1), Bowmanville (Wards 2 and 3), and Newcastle
(Ward 4). In most municipalities there are more communities or neighbourhoods than
there are wards, so wards will of necessity have to be created by grouping together
such building blocks for the purposes of representation, such as the inclusion of
Clarington's fourth largest settlement — Orono — in Ward 4.
This principle addresses two perspectives: what is divided by ward boundaries and
what is joined together. The first priority is that communities ought not to be divided
internally; as a rule, lines are drawn around communities, not through them. Secondly,
as far as possible wards should group together communities with common interests.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
From one perspective, the existing ward system successfully represents the major
communities in Clarington and some survey responses suggest that this approach is a
strength:
• "Keeps centres such as Courtice and Newcastle and their surrounding areas in
their own wards."
• "The 3 large towns (Newcastle, Courtice, Bowmanville) each have a separate
council member, Bowmanville having 2."
• "Geographically, the current ward distribution makes sense but not from a
representation perspective."
• "Ward 4 is the old Clarke township ward. It is unique and shouldn't be tampered
with. Divide the three wards up in Darlington to better distribute the population
and leave Clarke alone."
More notable, however, are two issues that undermine the success of the current wards
system at reflecting community or diversity of interest. One is the division of
Bowmanville into two wards and the other is the way rural Clarington is represented.
The latter was discussed briefly above in relation to the Community Access and
Connections principle (that is, how various communities are related to one another), but
is also significant as an indication of how the wards help or hinder giving a voice to a
distinctive part of Clarington. For example, survey responses suggest:
• "Rural needs are different from the urban needs. With most councillors focused
on the urban areas we seem to be the lost population with no voice at the council
table."
• "Urban and rural areas have totally different needs. Being the squeaky wheel,
urban needs are usually dealt with first. Rural areas need a separate advocate
to fight for their needs."
• "Weaknesses: Each ward has both rural and developed centres dividing the
focus of the Local Councillor."
While the historical hamlets and rural Clarington do not have a population sufficient
enough to warrant the creation of their own wards, they have interests more aligned
with each other than with the larger communities to their south. In this respect, wards
leaning heavily on the community or diversity of interest principle would likely be
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
incompatible with wards that place the highest priority on the representation by
population principle.
As well, a ward boundary is drawn through the largest urban community in Clarington,
Bowmanville. This arrangement was made at the time the original three -ward system
was changed to a four -ward system in 1995. The result is that Bowmanville residents
dominate two of the four wards, but at the same time they are represented by both
Regional Councillors. Both features are inconsistent with this principle since a
boundary is not drawn around the community, but through it. The following survey
responses capture some of the implications of this arrangement:
• "All of Bowmanville should be in the same ward."
• "It seems strange to me that Bowmanville is divided as it is."
• "I believe that Ward 2 and Ward 3 should be amalgamated so that Bowmanville
is represented as a whole, with needs and strengths different from Ward 1 and
Ward 4."
• "Bowmanville should be from Courtice Rd. to Darlington -Clarke Townline to
Taunton Rd."
• "1 don't think Bowmanville should be split into two."
While the existing ward structure is built around the major urban communities of
interests, it splits certain economic and social interests between the four existing wards,
thereby muting the rural voice in Council deliberations, but it also amplifies the
significance of one of the urban communities since it dominates two of the four wards.
It is difficult to argue that the current ward system reflects communities in Clarington in
an equitable way.
6.6 Effective Representation
As stated above, the five principles are subject to the overarching principle of "effective
representation," meaning that each resident should have comparable access to an
elected representative and each Local Councillor should speak on behalf of an equal
number of residents. Deviations from population parity can be justified if they contribute
to more effective representation.
Throughout the consultation process, we heard a number of concerns about the
effectiveness of representation, most of which relates back to the uneven population
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
figures between the wards and the feeling among some northern residents that they
lack a voice on Council. The following survey responses capture this sentiment:
• "No voice for smaller wards, everything seems to be done on Wards 1, 2 and 3.
Don't know the last time Ward 4 had anything done to improve or help the
community."
• "If the population has increased by 50 percent since the last review, perhaps we
should increase the number of local councillors, as each person now has half the
say they had 25 years ago. If the goal is to erode access and reinforce the
sense that voting does not matter, then please keep only 4 wards."
• "Current wards are not representing all areas equally. Someone in an apartment
in Bowmanville does not have the same needs as a farmer north of Taunton
Road. Anyone north of Taunton is not represented well."
• "Representation is uneven and looks likely to become more uneven in the future."
It bears repeating that this principle is not directed at the way present members of
Clarington Council perform their responsibilities but assesses the features of the
electoral system and how they enhance or restrict the capacity of residents to be
represented fairly at election time and throughout the term of the Council. In most
ways, the present ward system in Clarington is an obstacle to overcome rather than a
contribution to effective representation.
In our discussion paper we provided an initial evaluation of the current ward system.
For the most part, the current arrangements failed to meet the principles in place for the
W.B.R. We have since taken the feedback received through our various engagement
activities and again, for the most part, members of the public have confirmed many of
our initial perceptions. The current system largely fails to meet the W.B.R. principles
and cannot be said to serve the residents of the Municipality of Clarington well.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 3 — Present Clarington Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary
Comment
IL
Representation by
No
Two wards outside the acceptable
Population
range of variation and two wards are
at or close to the outer edge of the
acceptable range of variation.
Population Trends
No
Two wards outside the acceptable
range of variation and two wards are
at or close to the outer edge of the
acceptable range of variation.
Community Access and
All wards run from Lake Ontario to
Connections
the northern boundary of the
Municipality. Few natural social or
economic connections within Wards
1, 2, and 3.
Geographic and
Largely successful
The markers used as boundaries of
Topographical Features
the wards, north of the 401 are
straightforward and easy to identify.
Community or Diversity
No
Major population centres in separate
of Interests
wards, but Bowmanville is split, and
northern hamlets and rural areas are
included in wards dominated by
urban residents.
Effective Representation
Uneven population distribution and
inclusion of rural residents in wards
with predominantly urban population
hinders effective representation.
Meets Requirements of Guidinq Principle?
.'es I Largely successful I Partially successful
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
7. Alternative Ward Boundary Options
The current ward system in Clarington largely fails when evaluated against the guiding
principles for this review. If Council decides to change the ward boundary system, what
would alternatives look like? Below we present four preliminary ward configurations.
The Municipality of Clarington presents a unique challenge when using only a four -ward
system. The bulk of the population resides in the south of the Municipality, with 45% of
the total 2020 population in the Bowmanville urban settlement area and another 28% in
Courtice. As a result, it is very difficult to design four -ward options that successfully
balance the principles guiding this review — primarily representation by population and
communities of interest, the two principles normally given priority in other reviews, and
the principles considered most important by Clarington residents who responded to the
survey.
Keeping the identifiable communities of interest intact, creating wards with roughly
equal populations and providing for effective representation throughout Clarington is
understandably hard, given the large geography and population concentration noted
above. In response to this challenge, we have included additional alternative ward
boundary configurations using both five- and six -ward formats.
Preliminary Option A: Four -Ward Model
This is a four -ward system that provides an acceptable population distribution by
locating Courtice, Newcastle, and Bowmanville in different wards and placing the rural
northern area in two of the wards. The proposed Ward 1 encompasses all of Courtice
from the municipal boundary east to Highway 418 and the area north of Taunton Road
and west of Bowmanville Avenue/Regional Road 57 to the northern border of
Clarington. It includes the hamlets of Michell's Corners, Hampton, Enniskillen, Enfield,
and Burketon. The proposed Ward 4 encompasses the entire area east of the
Darlington -Clarke Townline and north of Taunton Road as far west as Bowmanville
Avenue/Regional Road 57. It includes Newcastle and Orono and the hamlets of
Newtonville, Brownsville, Kendal, Kirby, Leskard, Tyrone, and Haydon. The remaining
central area of Clarington is divided into northern and southern wards that include the
entire Bowmanville urban settlement area and a small rural zone. The proposed Ward
2 lies between Taunton Road and a line that follows Regional Road 22/Maple Grove
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Road/Highway 2/Liberty Street North/Concession Street East, and the proposed Ward 3
lies between that line and Lake Ontario.
The 2020 population for the proposed Ward 1 is slightly above the acceptable range but
is within range by 2030; the proposed Ward 4 is near the lower end of the range but
remains within the acceptable range in both 2020 and 2030. Bowmanville is divided
into two predominantly urban wards that are very close to the optimal size in both 2020
and 2030. Northern hamlets west of Regional Road 57 are grouped with the Courtice
urban area, while northern hamlets east of Regional Road 57 constitute a larger
proportion of the population in the proposed Ward 4.
Figure 4 — Preliminary Option A
N
Scuyoy _ K-01a [A-,
__------ -J__________ Cavan Monaghan
--_
I
I
35
I
11 I
�I
- II
-r
f
ray
of
Port Hope
Taunton Roa
a y
P r m
� a
pe94
a d a J
� ncess�on Rd 35
_ II Nash Rd �r �
// 11
C' St
Legend
oor Sr
Preliminary Option p
M w 2 elm d a._
= Vkr 4
0 2 4
moommozz:= Km
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 5 — Preliminary Option A — Population by Proposed Ward
Preliminary
Option A
Population Variance
Population
ii
M
2030
Ward 1
33,350
130%
41,530
122%
Ward 2
26,630
104%
36,530
107%
Ward 3
23,180
90%
31,650
93%
Ward 4
19,750
77%
26,760
78%
Total
102,900
136,470
Average
25,728
34,118
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Preliminary Option B: Four -Ward Model
This is a four -ward system that places a priority on wards that reflect distinct
communities of interest in Clarington. However, as is evident in the population
distribution figures below, large population discrepancies are a result. The proposed
Ward 1 includes all of Courtice, using Pebblestone Road as a northern boundary and
Holt Road as an eastern boundary as far as Highway 401, where the boundary follows
Highway 401 to Symons Road and a line extending south to Lake Ontario east of the
Ontario Power Generation Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
Bowmanville in its entirety is contained in the proposed Ward 2. Pebblestone Road
again serves as a northern boundary and Lambs Road serves as an eastern boundary,
south from Pebblestone Road to Bennett Road to Lake Ontario. The proposed Ward 3
contains both Orono and Newcastle, along with the hamlets of Newtonville and
Brownsville. Lambs Road serves as a western boundary north of Pebblestone Road,
while Taunton Road and Concession Road 6 constitute a northern boundary.
The proposed Ward 4 is essentially all of rural northern Clarington as well as the
hamlets of Michell's Corners, Hampton, Enniskillen, Enfield, Burketon, Kendal, Kirby,
Leskard, Tyrone, and Haydon. The proposed Wards 3 and 4 are large geographic
areas but the proposed wards would be below (in one case well below) an optimal
population in both 2020 and 2030.
The population for the proposed Ward 2 is significantly over the acceptable range in
both current and future projections. What this proposed ward boundary system
accomplishes, however, is the maintenance of the distinct communities of interest within
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Clarington. By doing so, however, it has sacrificed a relative population balance
between the wards that is better achieved in Preliminary Option A.
Figure 6 — Preliminary Option B
N
A
_ _ Kawartha Lakes Cavan Monaghan
_---------- _ -
135,
- I
I
T
I Pan Hope
Taunton Roa
o a
t
�Ot�'
es —
on cession Rd _, 35 �
� d Nash R� l
` n
1y— �
l f� Gossi 9r
Legend
onr st -'�
Preliminary Opuan 6
tiara s c
aa2
very 3
a
�•ba
Lake Onrarro
0 2 4
Km
Figure Figure 7 — Preliminary Option B — Population by Proposed Ward
TotalPreliminary-..
B
Population
2020Option
ii
Ward 1
29,640
115%
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
IP34,120
136,470
Average
25,725
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Option C: Five -Ward Model
This option adds an additional ward to address the challenge encountered using four
wards to balance population while accommodating communities of interest. The
proposed Ward 1 encompasses all of Courtice, with the eastern boundary running north
from Lake Ontario up Highway 418 to Nash Road. The Bowmanville urban area is
bisected along Liberty Street, as in the current ward system. The proposed Wards 2
and 3 have a northern border along Nash Road/Concession Road and include the entire
area south of that line between Highways 418 and 35/115. The proposed Ward 4
includes the remaining eastern part of Clarington, and the proposed Ward 5
encompasses the remaining northern part of the Municipality.
Adding an additional ward provides for reasonable population balance across the
wards, although Ward 2 is narrowly outside the range of variance.
One potential challenge created by a five -ward structure is deciding how to include the
two regional councillors in the representation structure, since one of them would need to
represent an additional ward. This could be accomplished, however, with one regional
councillor representing the three more sparsely populated wards (proposed Wards 3, 4,
and 5) with the other representing the remaining two wards (proposed Wards 1 and 2)
to balance out the number of constituents to whom they would be directly responsible.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
h
Figure 8 — Preliminary Option C
N
Ssugog
Kewanha Lakes Cavan Monaghan
(35�
f�-
1� J
r�
}-
` Port Hape
lIV �aunlon Ra ��
� m
u -
3 a 1
dk n
ples1g m
j} y
Rd �s
mncessiort
m
t Nash Rd
Legend co Ss,st
omf St \
_wmt -
- xab z ---'--
- VbM3 etn /�
Late Om,-
0 2 4
�Km
Figure 9 — Preliminary Option C — Population by Proposed Ward
TotalPreliminary•..
C
Population
2020Option
030
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%1
22,5401
83%
a
102,900
6,47
Average
20,580
27,294
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Option D: Six -Ward Model
In addition to the five -ward option above, a six -ward model has also been developed to
achieve similar goals, namely attempting to balance population while accommodating
communities of interest. The proposed Ward 1 encompasses Courtice, bordered on the
north by Pebblestone Road and on the east by Highway 418. Bowmanville is bisected
on an east -west line along Bloor/Concession Street. The proposed Ward 2 runs north
along Lambs Road, connecting Concession 4 in the north, while the proposed Ward 3
contains the southern section of Bowmanville from Bloor/Concession Street in the north
and ending at Lake Ontario in the south. The ward is bordered by Lambs Road in the
east and Highway 418 in the west. The proposed Ward 4 encompasses Newcastle,
using Concession Road and Concession Road 3 as a northern boundary, before
meeting Highway 35/115 in the east. The urban growth boundary in Newcastle
provides the eastern external boundary to the proposed Ward 4. Proposed Wards 5
and 6 are mostly rural: the proposed Ward 5 contains a number of hamlets and the
community of Orono. Bethesda Road serves as a western boundary, running along
Concession Road and Concession Road 3 and concluding at Lake Ontario, using
Highway 35/115 and the urban growth boundary in Newcastle as a border. The
municipal border with Port Hope serves as an eastern boundary for Ward 4, as does
Regional Road 9, stretching east from Kirby in the north. The proposed Ward 6 runs
north from Pebblestone Road and Taunton Road in the south, and encompasses all of
the territory to Clarington's northern, eastern, and western municipal boundaries.
The additional wards allow for two largely rural wards that provide a voice for those in
the hamlets and those taking part in the agricultural sector, while containing the urban
population in separate wards. In other words, it places a priority on keeping distinctive
communities of interest in separate wards. The trade-off is that the population in the
more urban Wards 1 to 3 is higher than the range of variation for a six -ward system.
Adding an additional two wards provides a benefit of easily assigning wards for regional
councillors.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
O
Figure 10 —Preliminary Option D
- Scugog Ke ,he Lakes
_-- —` Cavan Moneghart
l
35
it
ors
Part Hope
Tauntou boa rr
g 3 m n
1 �
r n Rd? 35
— ncessio m
� Nash Rd �r }� 11
Legend
/f s
rreummary opno. oIL
vwml' uor st \ `�
L YtiaN 3 i jl P
- vein a elfin _ a
On-
0 z a
mommon==Km
Figure 11 — Preliminary Option D — Population by Proposed Ward
Option D
Ward 1
TotalPreliminary-..
2020
28,850
168%
Population
2030
36,370
160%
Ward 2
25,870
151 %
35,760
157%
Ward 3
22,310
130%
29,770
131 %
Ward 4
12,110
71 %
19,440
85%
Ward 5
5,650
33%
6,130
27%
Ward 6
8,100
47%
9,000
40%
Total
102,900
136,470
-Average
17,148
22,745
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
7.1 Further Considerations
The four options presented herein are preliminary; they reflect the application of the
core principles for this review to the distribution of population and communities within
Clarington. However, as has been implicit in many of the observations made in this
document, Clarington is a unique municipality with several historically recognized
population centres of varying sizes, the concentration of population (close to 75% of the
entire population) in two southern centres, a large thinly populated northern territory,
and a forecast of significant further population growth in the southern part of the
Municipality.
Designing an electoral system that will deliver effective representation to such a diverse
community requires some accommodation: designs that put an excessive emphasis on
"representation by population" can hinder fair representation for residents in the
northern hamlets. Designs that place an emphasis on keeping urban population centres
in their own separate wards can result in the under -representation of those same
communities around the Council table. Grouping distinctive communities in the same
ward may systematically reduce the voice of minorities, whether they be geographic,
economic or social.
All of these challenges are magnified when trying to capture this diversity in four wards.
The characteristics just noted will not change. What can change is the number of
wards. As outlined in the Discussion paper, Clarington Council has the authority to
modify the number of local councillors and, by extension, the number of wards. For that
reason, this report has presented an option to increase Council by one seat and another
to increase it by two seats to help contribute to local democracy in Clarington. There
are costs associated with such changes that will be included in a final report if either of
these options is endorsed as a plausible alternative to the current wards.
The purpose of this report is to stimulate discussion in Clarington, to encourage
residents to "think outside the box" of representation. The options included are
deliberately called "preliminary" since the next step is to gather the perspectives of
residents on these new approaches to electing the members of their municipal Council.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26
Clarington 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report