HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLK 03-21 Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CLK 03-21 Date: June 7, 2021
From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
-Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report CLK 03-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Final Report, from Watson& Associates Economists Ltd., be received;
2.That Final Option ____, as outlined in the 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review FinalReport for the City of Pickering be approved;
3.That the Clerk be directed to bring forward the applicable By-law to change the wardboundaries at the June 28, 2021 Council Meeting for enactment; and,
4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams, (the ‘Consultants’), were engaged to conduct an independent Ward Boundary Review for the City of Pickering in November, 2017. The project was delayed due to
the announcement of a Regional Government Review that was undertaken by the Province of
Ontario in mid-2019. Once that review was complete, it posed no changes to the City’s municipal boundaries, and the Ward Boundary Review resumed with the adoption of the Project’s Terms of Reference at the December 16, 2019 Council Meeting. As plans began and the project got underway, COVID-19 occurred in early 2020 and once again paused the
project.
On July 27, 2020, a revised Terms of Reference were presented and adopted by Council so that the project could continue using virtual engagement platforms. This was necessary so that any changes to the existing ward boundaries could be implemented by the legislated timeframes prior to the 2022 Municipal Election. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Review
continued through the latter part of 2020 and concluded with the final phase of public
consultation in March 2021. The Consultants have now reviewed all the data and are presenting their findings and final report recommendations as outlined in Attachment #1 to CLK 03-21.
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 2
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this Final Report
as funds for the project were previously approved by Council through the annual budget process.
Discussion: At the Executive Committee Meeting of January 4, 2021, an Interim Ward Boundary Report was presented to the Committee, which was subsequently presented to Council, and was received for information. The report provided an overview of some
preliminary ward options based on the public feedback that had been received during Phase 1
of the Review. A summary of those preliminary options can be found in Attachment #2 to this Report. In February 2021, Phase 2 of public consultation was launched which included additional
virtual open houses, as well as an online survey where residents could choose their preferred
ward boundary option. The summary of those findings are contained in the Consultants’ Final Report included as Attachment #1.
Recognizing the importance of obtaining feedback from the public, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, Phase 2 of the community
engagement process included the use of various media to promote and engage the public.
This included a robust communication plan in addition to virtual open houses. The following provides a list of the various media and efforts used to engage the public, and further details are included in the Consultants’ Final Report (Attachment #1):
• Media release to kick-off Phase 2 of the Review (February 8, 2021);
• Email blasts to community groups through Corporate Communications (February 2021);
• Dedicated webpage advertised on all print and digital media and updated from Phase 1
to draw more attention to key messages;
• Whiteboard animation video to provide education on what a Ward Boundary Review entails;
• Virtual public open houses – 4 held for Phase 2 on February 24 and March 3, 2021, at
3:00 pm and 7:00 pm;
• Community page advertisements on February 18 and 25, 2021;
• Display of large floor banners at City Hall and the Library;
• Use of webpage banners on the City’s website homepage;
• Regular posts and promotion on all City social media platforms including paid boost ads
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram);
• Displays on all of the City’s digital signs for one full month; and,
• Distribution of rack cards in the January/February 2021 Interim Tax Bills.
Overall, as noted in the Consultants’ Final Report, the website and social media garnered good
participation which they have noted was higher than what has been experienced by other municipalities undertaking similar reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With the presentation of the Consultant’s Final Report, should Council decide on a change to the ward boundaries, and a by-law is brought forward for approval in accordance with Section
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 3
222 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”), within 15 days after a by-law is
passed to change the City’s wards, notice of the passing of the by-law must be given to the public specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). The appeal period is within 45 days of the by-law being passed. If there are no appeals filed within the specified timelines, the by-law comes into force on the day the new
Council of the municipality is organized following the 2022 Municipal Election and in
accordance with the Act, the election shall be conducted as if the by-law was already in force.
Should the Committee provide direction on the recommended ward boundary option, a by-law to change the ward boundaries would be presented to Council at its meeting on June 28, 2021. Should that by-law be passed, the deadline for an appeal would be no later than August 12,
2021.
The Consultants’ Final Report provides 3 recommended options. Committee/Council may choose to:
• Adopt one of those recommended options;
• Adopt one of the other preliminary options, presented in the Interim Report, not being recommended by the Consultants. (Note: A summary of preliminary options from the Interim Report – December 2020, are included as Attachment #2. To view the full Interim Report visit https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/edoc/235044/CLK%2001-21.pdf); or,
• Not adopt any of the Consultants’ recommendations and retain the current ward boundary structure.
To provide Committee/Council with additional information regarding council composition and
the manner in which Members of Council are elected, Final Options 1 and 2, as contained in
the Consultants’ Final Report, both retain a 3 ward structure and therefore, could retain the same number of City and Regional Councillors as are currently in place, resulting in no changes to Council composition or the manner in which they are elected.
Final Option 3 (3 Wards), also retains a three ward structure with no impact to the number of
Councillors or how they are elected.
Final Option 3-B (4 Wards) compliments Final Option 3 (3 Wards) in that it could be implemented in the future, once population numbers reach the thresholds and projected forecasts. Option 3 provides a clean boundary line between Wards 1, 2 and 3, allowing for a fourth Ward to be easily added at a later time should Council decide to do so. The boundaries
have already been provided by the Consultants and a change to the Ward Boundary By-law
could be done in the future without the need to undertake another ward boundary review.
Prior to the 2026 or 2030 Municipal Election, should the population numbers demonstrate the need to have more Council representation, the additional Ward 4 could be created. This would provide the ability to add an additional City Councillor who would be elected to the new Ward
4. The addition of another Regional Councillor would be determined by the Region of Durham
and if provided, would also allow the election of one Regional Councillor for the new Ward 4. Alternatively, at the time that Council may wish to add in the new Ward 4, should an additional
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 4
Regional Councillor not be allocated to the City of Pickering, consideration of electing Regional
Councillors at large for the 2026 or 2030 municipal election would be another viable option. These changes to Council composition are permitted under Section 217 of the Act, and a staff report and by-law would give effect thereto at the applicable time.
The findings presented in the Consultants’ Ward Boundary Review Final Report are provided
for Committee/Council consideration and staff seek Committee/Council’s direction in this
regard.
Attachments:
1.Final Report – City of Pickering Ward Boundary Review – Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. – June 20212.Summary of Preliminary Options – Interim Ward Boundary Review Report – December2020
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
SC:sc
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
June, 2021 info@watsonecon.ca
In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams
2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review
City of Pickering
________________________
Final Report
Attachment #1 to CLK 03-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction and Study Objectives ................................................................... 1
2. Context ................................................................................................................ 1
3. Project Structure and Timeline .......................................................................... 3
4. Previous Reports ................................................................................................ 3
5. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering ................ 4
5.1 Existing Population and Structure .............................................................. 5
5.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 ................................................ 6
6. Public Engagement ............................................................................................ 7
6.1 Online Engagement ................................................................................... 8
6.1.1 Website ......................................................................................... 8
6.1.2 Surveys ......................................................................................... 8
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement .......................................................... 10
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions ................................................................... 10
6.3 Interviews and Direct Community Outreach ............................................. 11
7. Principles .......................................................................................................... 11
8. Pickering’s Existing Ward Structure ............................................................... 12
9. Recommended Options ................................................................................... 15
9.1 Composition of Council ............................................................................ 15
9.2 Final Option 1 .......................................................................................... 17
9.3 Final Option 2 .......................................................................................... 21
9.4 Final Option 3 .......................................................................................... 24
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions ..................................................................... 29
Appendix A Public Engagement ............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B Social Media Metrics ........................................................................... B-1
Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
https://watsonecon.sharepoint.com/sites/WardBoundaryReviews/Shared Documents/General/Pickering WBR/5_Reports/4_Final Report/Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review
- Final Report.docx
Appendix C Public Consultation Sessions ............................................................ C-1
Appendix D Public Engagement Survey Results .................................................. D-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A - 30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
1. Introduction and Study Objectives
The City of Pickering has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association
with Dr. Robert J. Williams, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant Team, to conduct a
comprehensive and independent Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.) before the 2022
municipal election.
The primary purpose of the study is to prepare Pickering 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, including:
• 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 based on
identified guiding principles.
• Conduct an appropriate consultation process in accordance with Pickering’s
public engagement practices during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public
health emergency to ensure community support for the review and its outcome.
• Identify plausible modifications to the present ward structure including:
o What guiding principles will be observed in the design of the wards;
o Whether it is appropriate to consider changing the composition (size) of
Council as part of the same review; and
o Whether it is appropriate to consider dissolving the wards to elect
councillors at-large (in what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls a “general vote”
system).
• Deliver a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to
ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for Pickering 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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
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
City of Pickering.
At present, Council is comprised of seven members, consisting of a Mayor, who is
elected at-large, and six councillors, two of whom (a Regional Councillor and a City
Councillor) are elected in each of the three wards. The existing ward structure is
presented in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Pickering Current Ward Structure
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
The wards in which councillors are elected in Pickering were established when the
municipality was created in 1982 with one exception, a minor adjustment in 2005.
Population data from 2016 and 2020 indicate that the wards are unbalanced in
population.
When Pickering was created, the population was less than 40,000; in 2020 it is
approximately 92,000 and will grow by a further 58,000 by 2030, primarily in the present
Ward 3. Moreover, population growth has not been uniform across the City and future
growth will be concentrated in the northern part of the City.
3. Project Structure and Timeline
Council adopted the terms of reference for the W.B.R. in December 2019. Initial work
included research and data compilation plus interviews with all elected officials, the
Clerk’s office and other staff concerning this study. These interviews were initially
conducted in person in early 2020 but were suspended in March 2020 because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Following public health guidelines on gatherings, the Consultant
Team conducted the two rounds of public consultation virtually.
In addition, the Consultant Team undertook:
• Population and growth forecasting and data modelling to 2030.
• Development of seven preliminary ward boundary alternatives.
• Public consultation on the existing ward structure and preliminary alternatives.
• A project update to Council (January 4, 2021).
• Development of final options and recommendations, and preparation of a Final
Report (this document constitutes the Final Report) that will be on the agenda of
Executive Committee on June 7, 2021.
4. Previous Reports
A Discussion Paper was released in October 2020, followed by an Interim Report dated
December 2020 that provided preliminary alternative ward options developed by the
Consultant Team. Both reports are available on the City’s website:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
These reports serve as a platform for the Final Report since they include:
• 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.
• Seven preliminary ward boundary options.
The Final Report does not explore the topics discussed in the Discussion Paper or the
Interim Report, except in summary form to provide context, and assumes that those
interested in the recommendations included herein have access to the documents.
5. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the
City of Pickering
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. Accordingly, a detailed population estimate for the
City of Pickering, including its constituent wards and communities, was prepared to
allow evaluation of the existing ward structure and subsequent alternatives in terms of
representation by population in the current year (2020).
The City of Pickering is forecast to experience significant and urbanized population
growth over the next decade and beyond, in both the South Urban Lands and Seaton
Lands. For this reason, it is important that this study assesses representation by
population for both existing and future year populations. In accordance with the study
terms of reference, the analysis considered representation by population over the next
three municipal elections through to 2030. A population and housing forecast for the
City for the 2020 to 2030 period was determined, and the results of this analysis are
discussed below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
5.1 Existing Population and Structure
Since the City’s existing wards were established in 1974, the population of Pickering
has increased by approximately 150%.
As mentioned, this study needs to look at the existing as well as future population
distribution. A mid-2020 population estimate was derived by utilizing the 2016 Census
and a review of building permit activity from 2016 through the end of 2019, with an
assumed six-month lag from issuance to occupancy. Pickering’s estimated 2020
population is 99,900.[1] The City’s 2020 total population is presented by area in Table
5-1. As shown, the South Urban Lands account for the majority of the population, that
is approximately 93% of the current population (93,000) and is anticipated to continue to
grow.
Table 5-1: 2020 Population by Community
Geographic Location 2020
Population[1]
South Urban Lands 93,000
Seaton Lands 2,500
Remaining Rural 4,400
Total 99,900
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020.
The 2020 base population was developed at a sub-municipal level, allowing the
Consultant Team to aggregate these blocks to determine populations for existing and
alternative ward options. As shown in Figure 5-1, one of the three existing wards is
home to about 47% of the City’s population and is approximately four times the area of
the other two wards combined. As addressed in the Discussion Paper and the Interim
Report, the wards do not represent Pickering in an equitable way, and as growth
continues to develop, these wards will continue to grow further out of parity.
[1] Reflects a mid-2020 population estimate and includes Census undercount of
approximately 4.0%.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 5-1: 2020 Population Estimates
by Existing Ward Structure
5.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030
The Consultant Team prepared a City-wide population forecast for the 2020 to 2030
period that is consistent with the City of Pickering’s latest growth projections.[1]
Community level growth allocations were guided by a comprehensive review of
opportunities to accommodate future residential growth through plans of subdivision
(registered unbuilt, draft approved, and proposed), site plan applications, and
discussions with municipal planning staff.
By 2030, Pickering’s population is anticipated to grow by approximately 58,000, bringing
the total population (including undercount) to approximately 157,900, an increase of
approximately 58%. Most of this growth is anticipated to occur north of the current
urban lands and within the Seaton Lands south of Highway 407. Seaton is anticipating
a growth of over 13,000 units over the ten-year horizon, equating to growth of
[1] City of Pickering Detailed 20-Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019).
Ward 1
30,440
30%
Ward 2
22,550
23%
Ward 3
46,940
47%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
approximately 38,200 persons.[1] This accounts for 66% of the City’s growth, while the
remaining 33% is expected to occur within the current South Urban Lands (19,400
persons) with minimal growth anticipated in northern rural Pickering (400 persons) as
shown below in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Population Growth, 2020 to 2030
Geographic Location 2020
Population[1]
2030
Population[1]
2020-2030
Growth
South Urban Lands 93,000 112,400 19,400
Seaton Lands 2,500 40,700 38,200
Remaining Rural 4,400 4,800 400
Total 99,900 157,900 58,000
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020.
The development of the Seaton Lands will change the landscape of Pickering from a
southern urbanized City with a sparse northern rural community to a fully developed
City south of Highway 407. Moreover, the growth in Seaton is anticipated to occur
rapidly over the next 10 years.
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 City of
Pickering through a variety of methods:
• Online engagement through surveys, social media outreach, and a public-facing
website;
• Public consultation sessions (online virtual open houses); and
• Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff.
Information on the W.B.R. process was communicated through the website, as well as
through social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and additional notices
were posted on digital signs throughout both survey periods. A full list of the
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
engagements can be found in Appendix A with additional materials in Appendices B to
D.
The Consultant Team’s presentation and other information about the review, including
recordings of the Virtual Public Open Houses, are also available on the City’s website:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx
The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are
reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the final options to be
presented to Council. 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.
6.1 Online Engagement
6.1.1 Website
A public-facing webpage was established to raise awareness about the W.B.R., to
disseminate information about the process, and to give Pickering residents an
opportunity to provide feedback. 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 Interim Report, and
provide feedback directly to staff and the Consultant Team. A purpose-built Whiteboard
Animation Video was also posted on the webpage, which distilled some key information
about the W.B.R. into an accessible format.
Engagement with the City of Pickering’s W.B.R. website was excellent. As of April
2021, it had received 4,333 visitors, peaking at 1,996 in October 2020, and then at
1,377 in February 2021.
6.1.2 Surveys
Of those who visited the W.B.R. webpage, a significant number also opted to provide
feedback through the public survey. 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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
consultation process – an initial round (Phase 1) to evaluate public priorities and
perspectives on the existing ward structure, and a later survey (Phase 2) which asked
respondents to assess and rank a set of preliminary ward boundary options. The
Phase 1 survey was open from October 1 to November 2, 2020 and received 74
responses. Participants were given the opportunity to evaluate the existing ward
structure and to rank the guiding principles in terms of priority. In general, residents of
Pickering indicated that the overarching principle of Effective Representation should be
prioritized, but respondents differed on how they felt this would be best achieved.
Responses were quite balanced, with 45% of respondents ranking Representation by
Population as a “High Priority,” followed by 42% for Current and Future Population
Trends, 39% for Representation of Communities of Interest, and 34% for Physical
Features as Natural Boundaries. Respondents were split on whether the number of
wards should be increased, with just over half (54%) indicating they do not wish to see
an increase.
A follow-up survey was later opened from February 5 to March 7, 2021, which asked
participants to identify their preferred preliminary option. There was a much higher level
of engagement with the Phase 2 survey, with 656 participants, 311 of whom ranked the
preliminary ward boundary options from most to least favourite. The three-ward options
tended to be preferred, with 26% of respondents ranking Preliminary Option 1 as their
favourite, and 19% ranking Preliminary Option 3 as their favourite. Preliminary Option 2
was only ranked first by 15% of respondents but it was the most common second
favourite option, at 24%. The final three-ward option – Preliminary Option 3 – was less
commonly ranked as a top option, but it was a common “middle ground,” only being
chosen as least favourite by 6% of respondents. In fact, the four preliminary options
comprised of three wards were only ranked last by 32% of respondents combined,
compared to 68% for the remaining three preliminary options with greater numbers of
wards. Of these, Preliminary Option 5 – featuring six wards – was ranked least
favourite by 30% of respondents, followed by Preliminary Option 7 (four wards) at 26%.
Full survey results are reported in Appendix D.
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. Overall, these responses echoed the quantitative results, with many
participants expressing their view that the number of wards should not be increased,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
while others expressed concerns over the development in north Pickering and the
consequent population imbalance it would produce. Comments along these lines
corroborate the findings reported above, that Representation by Population should be
prioritized over the other guiding principles, and that preliminary options involving three
wards should be preferred. Moreover, there was a strong rural voice, calling for careful
representation of rural areas and rural issues on City Council. There were in addition to
these pertinent remarks, numerous written responses commenting on issues of
governance that are not immediately applicable to this W.B.R. For example, there were
multiple remarks on other facets of the electoral framework such as term limits on
councillors, as well as other critiques on the lack of diversity on City Council. Others still
wrote about broader issues such as taxation and the protection of the natural
environment in the face of rapid development in areas such as Seaton. Many of these
are important issues, but it must be emphasized that this review is limited in scope to
the evaluation of ward boundaries, and so issues specific to any sitting council, or
broader issues of governance, must be addressed through other avenues.
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement
Social media proved an effective platform for disseminating information about the
W.B.R. to the public. For example, a short brain-teaser survey entitled “How Well Do
You Know Pickering?” was circulated through social media, which quizzed respondents
on their knowledge of their City. It was intended to be a fun method for informing the
public, which would hopefully generate excitement about the W.B.R., as well as direct
participants to the survey.
Notices were also posted on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, raising awareness and
directing the public to the feedback survey. In total, 20 posts were made on Twitter,
reaching over 18,000 people and generating nearly 50 likes or retweets; 19 posts were
made on Facebook, reaching almost 35,000 people and generating around 130 likes or
shares; and 14 posts or stories were posted on Instagram, reaching nearly 17,000
people and generating 142 shares, likes, saves, or profile visits.
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions
The Consultant Team also held a series of public consultation sessions with Pickering
residents. Following public health guidelines put in place due to the COVID-19
pandemic, eight, approximately one-hour long, public open houses were conducted
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
virtually – four during Phase 1 and four in Phase 2. 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 this report. It should be highlighted that, while these public consultation
sessions had to be held virtually due to COVID-19, the eight sessions that occurred
outnumber the sessions that would have occurred under normal circumstances. Thus,
while gathering restrictions 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 an audio of a Public
Open House, are available online at https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-
boundary-review.aspx. Further, the slides 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 City. A series of interviews were conducted with the Mayor and
members of Council, as well as with senior City staff.
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 Pickering’s population as a whole. The
Consultant Team interpreted the public input using its professional expertise and
experience in W.B.R.s, along with knowledge of best practices, to develop the
recommended options.
7. Principles
The City of Pickering has established core principles and other directions for this
electoral review. The following principles will be referred to for guidance in the conduct
of the review:
• Representation by Population;
• Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
• Current and Future Population Trends;
• Physical Features as Natural Boundaries; and
• Effective Representation.
These principles are discussed briefly in the Discussion Paper (pages 10 to 12) and at
greater length in Part 7 (pages 14 to 20) of the Interim Report so they will not be
addressed again in this Final Report. The Consultant Team has given 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 Pickering. We also collected
responses from the public about the priority they assigned to the guiding principles (see
the Interim Report, Part 6).
The principles contribute to a system that provides for equitable on-going access
between elected officials and residents, but they may conflict with one another in their
application. Accordingly, it is expected that effective representation will be the
overriding principle and can 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 options more desirable in the
eyes of different observers. Ultimately, the ward design adopted by Pickering’s Council
should be the one that best fulfills as many of the guiding principles as possible.
8. Pickering’s Existing Ward Structure
A preliminary evaluation of the existing ward structure in Pickering is found in Chapter 3
of the Preliminary Options Report. That discussion and our evaluation of the existing
wards are found in the Table 8-1 below.
Table 8-1: Present Pickering Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Current
Ward Structure
Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Principle
Does the Current
Ward Structure
Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
No
None of the wards are coherent
electoral units because of limited
natural, social, or economic
connections within them.
Current and Future
Population Trends No All wards are outside the acceptable
range of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries
Partially
successful
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward but are
not used consistently.
Effective Representation No
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with a predominantly urban
population.
Meets Requirements of Guiding Principle?
Yes Largely successful Partially successful No
The existing ward boundaries fail to meet two main challenges: providing for population
parity between wards and accommodating future population trends.
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 City. 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” (O)
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
is based on federal redistribution legislation and is widely applied in municipalities like
Pickering that include both urban and rural areas.
Based on the municipal population estimates for 2020 of approximately 99,920, the
optimal population size for a local ward in a three-ward system in Pickering would be
33,307. This optimal ward population size increases to 52,653 by 2030 when the
population is projected to increase to approximately 157,900 (Table 8-2).
Table 8-2: Optimal Range for a Three-Ward System
Symbol Description Variance 2020 Population
Range
2030 Population
Range
OR+ Outside Range - High 25% >41,633 >65,817
O+ Above Optimal 5% 34,972 55,286
O Optimal Population Range - 33,307 52,653
O- Below Optimal -5% 31,641 50,021
OR- Outside Range - Low -25% <24,980 <39,490
Population data for 2020 suggests that two of the three wards are outside the
acceptable range of variance. The range in population amongst the wards is
approximately 24,000, between a low of 22,550 in Ward 2 and a high of 46,940 in Ward
3. While some variation is acceptable, especially with regard to the rural and urban
nature of Pickering, this variation is on the extreme side. Ironically, the ward that
includes all of rural Pickering is also the largest by population, almost as large as the
combined population of the two completely urban wards, and much of the City’s future
residential growth is expected to be largely concentrated in that same ward. Even the
population range in the two urban wards is considerable. Without any adjustment, the
disparities between the wards will continue.
Responses to the survey and participation in the public consultation sessions have
largely shown that Pickering residents also think that population parity and future
population trends should be prioritized in any alternative ward boundary system. The
consultation process also revealed that there continues to be strong rural and
agricultural interests and well-established hamlets and communities that should
somehow be represented on Council. It is clear that some of these communities have
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
interests that are distinct from the larger, more populated communities in the urban
area.
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
adopt an alternate ward configuration.
9. Recommended Options
9.1 Composition of Council
As mentioned in the Interim Report, Pickering, like many municipalities in Ontario,
provides a unique challenge when finding a suitable ward boundary system. Pickering
is a community with a large population concentration in the southern portion of the City
but also includes an extensive sparsely populated rural hinterland that is about to be
transformed by the Seaton developments. Clearly the Pickering of 1974 when the
wards were established is not the Pickering of 2021 nor of 2031.
A consideration of what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls the “composition” of council was
not included in the original directions to the Consultant Team but has arisen as the
implications of working in a three-ward system became clearer. As we noted in the
Interim Report (pages 34 to 37), within ten years Pickering will absorb new population
growth equivalent to its total population when the three wards were first established
(40,000), the bulk of it within a concentrated area in a single ward. Other municipalities
within Durham Region with a total population of 40,000 or less are themselves divided
into more than three wards.
The preliminary options addressed in the Interim Report began by working with the
guiding principles for the review, along with feedback from residents and the expertise
and experience of the Consultant Team to achieve an improvement on the now-familiar
three-ward configuration. In addition, the Consultant Team developed additional
alternative ward boundary configurations using four-, five- and six-ward formats to
discover whether the large geography and population concentration, present and future,
can be better represented in a larger number of wards.
Over the course of this review, and in particular in the viewpoints conveyed in some of
the responses to the Phase 2 survey, we have concluded that a three-ward system has
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
significant challenges in meeting the guiding principles set out for this review. When
incorporating projected population growth, those guiding principles become largely
unachievable under a three-ward system. That is, a three-ward system, designed when
the then-Town's population was less than 40,000, has been in place with only a minor
refinement for over forty-five years, during which time the municipality has grown by
150% and the three wards now make it difficult to provide fair and effective
representation to the residents of Pickering. During that time, the municipality has had
the authority to modify its ward boundaries and the composition of its Council to better
align representation to both the increase and distribution of population, but no Council
has done so. As a result, there is a perception among some residents that a three-ward
system in Pickering must always be maintained or cannot be modified in any significant
way.
Pickering is governed by a seven-member Council; however, a majority are also serving
on the Region of Durham Council. Put another way, there are only three councillors
whose primary responsibility is governing a City of about 100,000 people. Local
responsibilities have expanded, and population growth has been and is expected to be
significant; however, the number of local councillors has remained the same. It is
important to note that the four elected officials who sit on Regional Council also sit on
City Council and are available to respond to Pickering residents over local concerns.
They have dual responsibilities as members of both Councils and as such have a
division of responsibilities. This is not a comment on the way these individual
councillors perform their responsibilities but an observation on the fact that Pickering
has not adjusted its system of representation to recognize the changes in the
community and the growth in responsibilities that the City itself must address. There
are several much smaller municipalities in Ontario and Durham Region where there are
as many as seven local councillors in addition to the municipality’s upper-tier
representatives. We are in fact reviewing the electoral system in another municipality
where there are three lower-tier councillors – but its total population is just over 10,000.
One other hindrance to modifying the composition of council is the interlocking method
of election of Regional and City Councillors. That is, with three seats on Durham
Regional Council (excluding the Mayor), the same wards are used to fill both positions.
One way to modify the number of seats on Pickering City Council would be to elect the
Regional Councillors by general vote (that is, without reference to wards) and to add an
additional ward to elect an additional City Councillor. This idea of electing Regional
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Councillors by general vote was briefly considered in Pickering in the early 1980s but
was never implemented; however, electing Regional Councillors by general vote was/is
used in other Ontario regions (such as York and Waterloo) and in Whitby (as well as in
Oshawa for a number of elections).
Now that all indications are that the projected population growth will occur over the next
five to ten years, the three-ward arrangement is a less plausible electoral system for
Pickering. Many respondents to the survey urge the adoption of a fair ward
arrangement that addresses both the present and future population distribution in
general and the growing population in what is now Ward 3 by splitting that ward or re-
dividing the municipality generally into more wards. These alternatives would mean an
increase in the number of City Councillors to provide more effective representation. On
the other hand, other respondents were adamant that the cost of additional Councillors
was grounds enough for continuing with a Council of the present size (or in some cases
even advocating to reduce it). From that point of view, enhanced representation is a
cost that may residents are not prepared to see as valid, even though Pickering’s
council composition appears to be frozen in the 1970s, obstructing the achievement of
fair and effective representation in the 2020s.
As discussed above, however, the Consultant Team does not recommend that
Pickering retain the current ward boundary system, whether for three wards or some
other number.
9.2 Final Option 1
This Final Option is based on Preliminary Option 1, a three-ward system that grows into
an acceptable population distribution in 2030 with minimal changes to the current three
wards. The proposed Wards 1 and 2 include most of the present urban areas, with the
downtown in a single ward. As at present, both of these proposed wards include areas
north and south of Highway 401, but a major regional road (Whites Road) is used as a
boundary between them instead of Fairport Road. A cleaner and consistent northern
boundary is used with the proposed Ward 3 along Concession Road 3. The proposed
Ward 3 encompasses the entire rural part of Pickering but still includes the Duffin
Heights and Brock Ridge urban neighbourhoods that contribute the bulk of the
population in 2020. By 2030, the population of that proposed ward is expected to triple
in size, primarily associated with Seaton.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
The 2020 population distribution includes only one proposed ward (Ward 3) in the
optimal range, but the other two proposed wards are outside the acceptable 25%
variation. This would not meet the representation by population principle but, as Table
9-1 shows, it comes very close to meeting the future population principle with one
proposed ward in the optimal range and the other two within the margins of the
acceptable 25% variation.
In the shorter term, the proposed Ward 3 will include about two-thirds of the City’s land
mass but only approximately 20% of the population. It is already the case that it is
difficult to conclude that rural Pickering and its historic hamlets can claim effective
representation in the present Ward 3; those communities within Pickering will be even
less visible by the further transformation of rural Pickering.
This option, as shown in Figure 9-1, is included here because it is in several ways an
improvement on the present system and may be seen as a more palatable change than
other options in light of the 45-year history of the present system. A modest
improvement is a small step, but a step nevertheless.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-1: Ward Map of Final Option 1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-1: Final Option 1 – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,770 1.04 O 39,750 0.75 O-
Ward 2 44,770 1.34 OR+ 53,760 1.02 O
Ward 3 20,380 0.61 OR- 64,450 1.22 O+
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 52,653 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-2: Final Option 1 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No
Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation but
will grow into better balance,
probably within five years.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Largely
successful
Two of the wards are coherent
electoral units. Ward 3 continues to
be a mix of neighborhoods ranging
from suburban neighbourhoods to
sparsely populated rural areas and
hamlets as well as the forecast
Seaton development.
Current and Future
Population Trends
Largely
successful
All wards are within the acceptable
range of variation, although two are
near the margins.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with predominantly urban
population.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
9.3 Final Option 2
This Final Option, as presented in Figure 9-2, is a ward configuration that is forecast to
achieve population parity for the 2030 municipal election.
There are only two actual ward boundary lines in Preliminary Option 3: Concession
Road 3 and Dixie Road. Although establishing the northern boundary for the two
southern wards at Concession Road 3 means the 2020 population of proposed Ward 3
is well below the acceptable range of variation, councillors elected in that ward will need
to be engaged in the complex task of representing a brand new large urban community
in the heart of the ward.
As in some other preliminary options, population parity is not realistic in 2020, but the
dynamics of growth in Pickering point to a successful population balance in 2030. The
proposed Ward 1 begins as the ward with the largest population, but is largely built out
and likely to experience minimal growth. The proposed Ward 2 is the smallest by area
and population, but encompasses downtown Pickering and the associated
neighbourhoods, businesses, and extensive employment lands south of Highway 401,
as well as new neighbourhoods along the Brock Road corridor that are placed in Ward 3
in Final Option 1. As shown in Table 9-3, with removal of those neighbourhoods, the
population of the proposed Ward 3 is only about a quarter that of the other two wards in
2020, but grows by about 40,000 residents by 2030 and into the optimal range (that is,
within 5% of optimal).
If achieving population parity in a three-ward system over the next two or three elections
is Council’s priority, on balance Final Option 2 is a plausible alternative.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-2: Ward Map of Final Option 2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-3: Final Option 2 – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 49,240 1.48 OR+ 54,960 1.04 O
Ward 2 39,200 1.18 O+ 48,640 0.92 O-
Ward 3 11,480 0.34 OR- 54,360 1.03 O
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 52,653 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-4: Final Option 2 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No
Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation but
will grow into better balance,
probably within five years.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Yes
The two urban wards are coherent
collections of neighborhoods while
the third is largely rural today. The
ward will be transformed during the
next three election cycles.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
Successfully achieves the kind of
population balance sought in this
principle.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes
Markers used as boundaries of the
wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Yes
Effective representation is hindered
in the short term by uneven
population distribution but
accommodates demands on
councillors brought on by large-scale
development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
9.4 Final Option 3
Final Option 3 builds on two of the preliminary options to provide a way to align the
wards in a manner that achieves the representation by population principle for the 2022
municipal election, but also serves as the basis for an additional ward to accommodate
the future population growth in Seaton. In terms of community of interest, it places the
central business district, a significant concentration of employment and major cultural
institutions that are components of the urban fabric of Pickering, in a single ward along
with a number of well-established nearby neighbourhoods. It also locates all the
shoreline and other neighbourhoods south of Highway 401 in a single ward. The
common boundary of the proposed Wards 1 and 2 is Highway 401 from Ajax on the
east side of the City through to Whites Road, but it becomes less clear-cut north of
Highway 401 where it follows Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road.
To achieve better parity in 2020, the northern boundary of the two proposed urban
wards is Finch Avenue, effectively keeping several established neighbourhoods in
Liverpool and the growing Brock Ridge and Duffin Heights neighbourhoods in the same
ward as rural Pickering. Final Option 3 maintains a population balance over the next
three elections – but only in the two proposed southern wards. The drawback of this
option is that the population growth in proposed Ward 3 (forecast to be around 45,000)
pushes the proposed ward well over the acceptable range – while the proposed ward
also encompasses about 60% of the City’s land mass. This is not a desirable
combination, but it appears to be inevitable in a three-ward system in Pickering.
In other words, Final Option 3 (Figure 9-3) is premised on “catching up” with the
population growth since 1974 to arrive at population parity across three wards but not
on preparing for growth. This is where Preliminary Option 7 enters the picture: when
the population of Seaton pushes the proposed Ward 3 close to the upper limit of the
range of variation – whether before the 2026 municipal election or the 2030 municipal
election, the ward would be divided at Taunton Road (as included in Preliminary Option
7) resulting in all four wards within the acceptable range of variation.
We hasten to point out that the idea of a fourth ward is not part of the 2021 W.B.R. but
Final Option 3 can be readily – and successfully – adapted for that purpose, especially if
Pickering is assigned an additional seat on Durham Regional Council for the 2026
municipal election.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-3, below, represents Final Option 3 which is to be adopted under the current
population conditions as presented in Table 9-5. When adequate population is reached
for an additional ward, Ward 3 is to be divided at Taunton Road, as outlined in Figure
9-4. The resulting solution would generate population distributions, as shown in Table
9-6, where there is a three-ward system in 2020 and a four-ward system in place by
2030 once the population of Ward 3 is significant enough to accommodate two wards.
Table 9-5: Final Option 3 – Population by Ward
Ward Number 2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O-
Total 99,920 - -
Average 33,307 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-6: Final Option 3 + 3-B – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O 41,560 1.05 O+
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+ 41,610 1.05 O+
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O- 38,420 0.97 O
Ward 4 - - - 36,380 0.92 O-
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 39,493 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-3: Ward Map of Final Option 3 – Three Wards
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-4: Ward Map of Final Option 3-B – Four Wards
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-7: Final Option 3 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population Yes
Successfully achieves the kind of
population balance sought in this
principle.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Largely
successful
Two of the wards are coherent
electoral units. Ward 3 continues to
be a mix of neighborhoods ranging
from suburban neighbourhoods to
sparsely populated rural areas and
hamlets as well as the forecast
Seaton development.
Current and Future
Population Trends No
The two urban wards are balanced
with one another, but Ward 3 is well
above the acceptable range of
variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries
Largely
successful
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with predominantly urban
population.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions
This report will be presented to the Executive Committee at a meeting scheduled for
June 7, 2021. During their deliberation, Council has a series of choices to make.
Should the wards be more reflective of existing population or of future population
projections? Is it appropriate to continue with a three-ward configuration for Pickering or
should Council look ahead to where the City will be within a very few years? How do
they want to see the rural area and communities outside urban Pickering represented?
How important are clear and identifiable ward boundaries to the residents of Pickering?
Council must decide which of these core principles best represents the City’s
component communities and residents.
We also urge Council to appreciate that there is probably no “right” time to adjust the
wards but that choosing to postpone a decision, for example, until after the forecast
growth has taken place in Seaton, will perpetuate a system that is already unsound and
inequitable. It is difficult to justify maintaining a flawed system just because it has a
history.
It is probably also important for Council to consider adopting a Ward Boundary Review
Policy that commits the municipality to review its ward boundaries after three elections
or when population growth reaches a pre-determined threshold. Leaving such an
integral part of Pickering’s democratic system unaddressed for more than forty years
should be unacceptable to the residents of the City in the future; electoral reviews
should be proactive and routine not reactive and discretionary. The implementation of a
new ward boundary model as provided for in this report can be viewed as addressing
the distribution of population and communities as they exist in 2021 not 1974, but as the
municipality changes through population growth and new residential development, such
new conditions can be incorporated into the City’s electoral system within a relatively
short period of time. It is appropriate for the City to be prepared for this inevitable
change in 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, by default, endorse it by not selecting an
alternative option. As we suggested in the Interim Report, however, one of our
purposes was to stimulate discussions in Pickering, to encourage residents and Council
to “think outside the box” of representation. If it declines to act, Council must clearly
understand that such a decision essentially indicates to the City’s residents that it
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
believes retaining the 1974 ward system still serves Pickering well. The Consultant
Team has reached a different conclusion.
In that context it is also important to note that taking no action is a form of decision that
can still be appealed, albeit indirectly. Section 223 of the Municipal Act, 2001 indicates
that one per cent of the electors or 500 of the electors in the municipality, whichever is
less, may “present a petition to the council asking the council to pass a by-law dividing
or redividing the municipality into wards or dissolving the existing wards.” If Council
does not pass a by-law in accordance with such a petition within 90 days after receiving
the petition, any of the electors who signed the petition may apply to the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) to have the municipality redivided into wards. In that event, the
Consultant Team – which has recommended that the present system not be maintained
– would not be in a position to act in support of Council’s decision to retain the present
system.
Within this report, the Consultant Team has highlighted some 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 Pickering well and ought to be changed. The public
engagement efforts throughout this review have been largely consistent with this view.
Depending on Council’s decision related to the Final Options contained in this report,
ratification of a by-law to implement a preferred option is expected to occur before the
summer recess.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix A
Public Engagement
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Figure A-1: List of Public Engagement Methods
Tool Description
Pickering W.B.R.
Webpage
A dedicated engagement website was developed for the
Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.) study at
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-
review.aspx. The webpage included an informative
whiteboard video, links to public engagement sessions and
surveys, and up-to-date messaging to inform the public of the
status of the W.B.R.
Public Open
Houses
Eight open houses were held:
Phase 1
• October 7, 2020 x 2
• October 15, 2020 x 2
Phase 2
• February 24, 2021 x2
• March 3, 2021 x2
See Appendix C for additional Information.
Public
Engagement
Surveys
Two phases of surveys were posted on the W.B.R. webpage:
the first intended to discern which guiding principles were
prioritized by the community, and the second to discern
which preliminary option was preferred.
See Appendix D for a summary of the results.
Interviews with
members of
Council
Each member of Council was invited to participate in a one-
hour discussion with the consultant.
Social Media
20 notices were posted on Twitter:
• Reached 18,108
• 26 retweets
• 23 likes
19 notices were posted on Facebook:
• Reached 34,974
• 53 shares
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Tool Description
• 77 likes
14 notices were posted on Instagram:
• 10 posts reached 13,760
• Posts generated 9 shares, 121 likes, and 4 saves
• 4 stories reached 3,116
• Stories were shared twice and led to 6 profile visits
Full details of each post are provided in Appendix B.
Digital Billboards
Phase 1
The Ward Boundary Review designs were displayed on the
City’s four digital signs from September 15 until the survey
closed on October 30, 2020:
• Civic Complex
• Recreation Complex
• Centennial Park (Brock Road)
• Western Gateway (Kingston Road and Altona Road)
Phase 2
The Ward Boundary Review designs for Phase 2 were
displayed on the City’s digital signs:
• Civic Complex
• Recreation Complex
• Centennial Park (Brock Road)
• Western Gateway (Kingston Road and Altona Road)
• CN Bridge
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix B
Social Media Metrics
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Phase 1
Twitter Stats
Post #1 – Published September 23
• 950 reached
• 1 retweet, 2 likes
Post #2 – Published September 25
• 877 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #3 – Published October 1
• 1,006 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #4 – Published October 5
• 1,824 reached
• 3 retweets, 5 likes
Post #5 – Published October 6
• 706 reached
• 1 retweet, 1 like
Post #6 – Published October 7
• 413 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #7 – Published October 9
• 858 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #8 – Published October 13
• 855 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #9 – Published October 14
• 1,015 reached
• 2 retweets
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #10 – Published October 23
• 1,015 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #11 – Published October 27
• 1,114 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #12 – Published October 29
• 901 reached
• 1 retweet, 2 likes
Post #13 – Published October 30
• 1,000 reached
• 2 retweets, 1 like
Facebook Stats
Post #1 – Published September 21
• 2,074 reached
• 5 likes, 4 shares
Post #2 – Published September 23
• 1,430 reached
• 6 likes, 4 shares
Post #3 – Published October 1
• 1,161 reached
• 6 likes
Post #4 – Published October 5 (Boosted Post)
• 6,022 reached
• 21 likes, 7 shares
• 198 link clicks
Post #5 – Published October 6
• 1,069 reached
• 2 likes, 1 share
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #6 – Published October 7
• 738 reached
• 2 shares, 2 likes
Post #7 – Published October 9
• 1,345 reached
• 1 share, 2 likes
Post #8 – Published October 13
• 1,528 reached
• 4 shares
Post #9 – Published October 14
• 1,129 reached
• 1 share
Post #10 – Published October 23
• 1,173 reached
• 1 like
Post #11 – Published October 27
• 1,211 reached
Post #12 – Published October 29
• 795 reached
• 1 like
Post #13 – Published October 30
• 861 reached
• 1 like, 1 share
Instagram Post Stats
Post #1 – Published September 21
• 1,554 reached
• 18 likes, 1 share, 3 saves
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #2 – Published September 25
• 1,372 reached
• 11 likes, 2 shares
Post #3 – Published October 2
• 1,010 reached
• 8 likes, 4 shares, 1 save
Post #4 – Published October 7
• 1,085 reached
• 9 likes
Post #5 – Published October 13
• 1,360 reached
• 8 likes
Instagram Story Stats
Story #1 – Published September 21
• 776 reached
• 1 share
Story #2 - Published September 23
• 599 reached
Story #3 – Published October 5
• 701 reached
• 1 share, 3 profile visits
Story #4 – Published October 13
• 1,040 reached
• 3 profile visit
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Phase 2
Twitter Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9
• 656 reached
Post #2 – Published February 12
• 681 reached
• 1 like
Post #3 – Published February 17
• 980 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #4 – Published February 22
• 887 reached1 retweet, 1 like
Post #5 – Published February 24
• 849 reached
• 2 retweets, 1 like
Post #6 – Published February 26
• 829 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #7 – Published March 4
• 692 reached
• 1 like
Facebook Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9 (BOOSTED POST)
• 10,044 reached
• 26 likes, 18 shares
Post #2 – Published February 12
• 983 reached
• 2 shares
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #3 – Published February 17
• 828 reached
• 1 like, 1 share
Post #4 – Published February 22
• 909 reached
• 4 shares
Post #5 – Published March 4
• 1,018 reached
• 3 likes, 3 shares
Post #6 – Published March 5
• 656 reached
Instagram Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9
• 1,382 reached
• 9 likes
Post #2 – Published February 17
• 1,333 reached
• 17 likes, 1 share
Post #3 – Published February 22
• 1,634 reached
• 15 likes, 1 share
Post #4 – Published March 2
• 1,309 reached
• 9 likes
Post #5 – Published March 5
• 1,721 reached
• 17 like
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix C
Public Consultation Sessions
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-13
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-14
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-15
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-16
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-17
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-18
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-19
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-20
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-21
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-22
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-23
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-24
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-25
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-26
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-27
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-28
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-29
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-31
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-32
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-33
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-34
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-35
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-36
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-37
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-38
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-39
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix D
Public Engagement Survey
Results
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
82
22
60
20
43
38
46
48
76
53
37
19
45
33
53
51
74
44
31
17
41
38
54
51
108
29
13
18
32
28
36
55
49
40
71
22
48
25
29
48
118
21
36
32
12
18
92
40
81
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Preliminary Option 1 (3-Wards 1)
Preliminary Option 2 (3-Wards 2)
Preliminary Option 3 (3-Wards 3)
Preliminary Option 4 (3-Wards 4)
Preliminary Option 5 (6-Wards)
Preliminary Option 6 (5-Wards)
Preliminary Option 7 (4-Wards)
Preliminary Options Ranked (1 = Favourite, 7 =Least Favourite)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Preliminary
Option 1
(3-Ward Option 1)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,770 1.04 O 39,750 0.75 O-
Ward 2 44,770 1.34 OR+ 53,760 1.02 O
Ward 3 20,380 0.61 OR- 64,450 1.22 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 1
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Summary of Preliminary Options - Interim Ward
Boundary Report (December 2020)
Attachment #2 to CLK 03-21
Preliminary
Option 2
(3-Ward Option 2)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides acceptable population
distributions in the existing
communities but as the
population grows, parity is
maintained in only the two
proposed southern wards.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O 41,560 0.79 O-
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+ 41,610 0.79 O-
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O- 74,790 1.42 OR+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 2
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary
Option 3
(3-Ward Option 3)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other. There
are only two actual ward
boundary lines in this option;
Concession Rd. 3 and Dixie
Road.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 49,240 1.48 OR+ 54,960 1.04 O
Ward 2 39,200 1.18 O+ 48,640 0.92 O-
Ward 3 11,480 0.34 OR- 54,360 1.03 O
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 3
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Balances both existing and
future growth trends.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 44,400 1.33 OR+ 48,290 0.92 O-
Ward 2 35,530 1.07 O+ 44,970 0.85 O-
Ward 3 19,990 0.60 OR- 64,710 1.23 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 4
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary
Option 5
(6-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Doubles the current number of
wards.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained within two northern
wards.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 18,160 1.09 O+ 23,360 0.89 O-
Ward 2 22,970 1.38 OR+ 27,440 1.04 O
Ward 3 22,250 1.34 OR+ 23,920 0.91 O-
Ward 4 24,730 1.48 OR+ 28,550 1.08 O+
Ward 5 7,860 0.47 OR- 32,100 1.22 O+
Ward 6 3,950 0.24 OR- 22,600 0.86 O-
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 16,653 26,327
Preliminary Option 5 - 6-Wards
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary
Option 6
(5-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Increases the current number of
wards by two.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 28,800 1.44 OR+ 33,770 1.07 O+
Ward 2 25,910 1.30 OR+ 30,680 0.97 O
Ward 3 23,370 1.17 O+ 27,590 0.87 O-
Ward 4 18,160 0.91 O- 29,540 0.94 O-
Ward 5 3,690 0.18 OR- 36,380 1.15 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 19,984 31,592
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary Option 6 - 5-Wards
Preliminary
Option 7
(4-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Increases the current number of
wards by one.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 32,700 1.31 OR+ 39,030 0.99 O
Ward 2 38,320 1.53 OR+ 44,140 1.12 O+
Ward 3 25,210 1.01 O 38,420 0.97 O
Ward 4 3,690 0.15 OR- 36,380 0.92 O-
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 24,980 39,490
Preliminary Option 7 - 4-Wards
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Preliminary
Options
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams