Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Ward Boundary Petition (Related to CLK 03-21)Memo To: Mayor Ryan August 30, 2021 Members of Council From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Ward Boundary Petition File: A-1440 The City undertook a Ward Boundary Review that concluded with the 2020/21 Ward Boundary Review Final Report, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (the “Consultant”), being provided to the Executive Committee on June 7, 2021, by way of Report CLK 03-21. At the June 7th Meeting, the Committee referred the matter directly to Council at its Meeting on June 28, 2021. At the June 28, 2021 Meeting, Council adopted Resolution #624/21 as follows: 1. That Report CLK 03-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Final Report, from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., be received; and, 2. That the existing ward boundaries for the City of Pickering be maintained. On July 22, 2021, the Clerk’s Office received a petition in accordance with Section 223(1) of the Municipal Act (the “Act”). The petition requested the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering pass a bylaw to amend its Ward Boundaries, consistent with one of the three recommendations set out in the Final Report prepared by the Consultant. Section 223(2) of the Act states that the petition requires the signatures of 500 electors in the municipality (an elector being defined as a person whose name appeared on the voters’ list for the last regular election, being the 2018 Municipal Election). The petition was reviewed and vetted by the Clerk’s Office. In total, there were 1,059 entries on the petition, 700 of which were verified as being on the 2018 Voters’ List. The remaining 359 entries were either illegible, incomplete or could not be found on the 2018 Voters’ List. In accordance with the City’s Petition Procedure, the full petition was provided to Members of Council on August 17, 2021, and a formal acknowledgment letter was provided to the petition contact that same day, advising that the petition was viable and had met the requirements under the Act. The letter to the petition contact also advised that a Special Meeting of Council would be called for August 30, 2021, where Council would consider the matter. August 30, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Ward Boundary Petition Now that a viable petition has been received and verified, Section 223(4) of the Act states “If the council does not pass a by-law in accordance with the petition within 90 days after receiving the petition, any of the electors who signed the petition may apply to the Ontario Land Tribunal to have the municipality divided or redivided into wards or to have the existing wards dissolved.” As previously noted, the petition was received on July 22, 2021 and therefore the deadline to meet the 90 days to pass a by-law is October 20, 2021. This memo serves to provide the petition letter and first page of the petition (with all personal information being redacted) (Attachment #1), as well as the June 7th Final Consultant’s Report (Attachment #2) in order that Council may further consider this matter. Respectfully, Susan Cassel City Clerk Attachment Attachment #1 – Petition Letter and first sample page (personal information redacted) Attachment #2 – Report CLK 03-21, Ward Boundary Review, Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Attachment #1 RECEPVED CITV or 0 ,r1tF"RING HAND DELIVERED: July 22, 2021 City of Pickering Clerk's Office 2nd Floor, One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 JUL 2 ~ 2021 LERK'S OFFICE Cl? C Attention: Susan Cassel, City Clerk Dear Clerk: Where as the Municipal Act Section 223 (1) Electors in a municipality 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. And Where as a petition requires signatures of a minimal of 500 signatures in the municipality who where deemed electors in the election of 2018 as set out in s223{2} of the Municipal Act And Where as the Council failed in its duties to pass a by-law that would ensure effective representation contrary to the 3 final recommendations put forward by an independent consultant who was retained by the Municipality and whom engaged the Public And Whereas it is imperative that with the Election period commencing January 1, 2022 that this matter be presented to Council in a timely matter to pass the necessary by-law in accordance with one of the three recommendations put forward by the Consultant I am formally presenting this petition containing 1,060 signatures on 147 pages to you and requesting that given Council is on summer recess that a Special Meeting of Council be convened in accordance with your procedural by-laws and the Municipal Act to deal with this urgent matter, Sincerely, Matt Bentley To: The Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LlV 6K7 Whereas lhc consulting com11any Wntson & Associnlcs Economists Ltd were rclaincd by lhc Cily of Pickering to conduct 0 Ward Boundary Review Ihat commenced December 2019 /\nd Whereas the terms ofreference for the review were amended to enable a community engagement model in spite of the cbnllengcs posed by CO VID-19 And Whereas 1he Consultnnls fonnd th ul the purticij)Hlion rate in Pickering garnered higher panicipntion than experienced by oll1cr Municipalities undertaking similar reviews during COVID-19 /\nd Whereas the Consultant upon completion of1hcir review found that lbc curreot Ward Boundaries no longer serves the residents of Pickering well nnd ought to be changed nnd provided 3 op1ions tlml achieved the criteria for Effective Representation. And Wl1crcns the Council for the Corpomtion for the City of Pickering failed in its duties lo selecl one oftbe three options put forward by the exter­ nal consultnnl us recommended in repon CLK 03-21 We the Electors in the Municipality ofthe City ofCouncil Hereby Pclition the Council for lhe Corporn1ion oflhe Cily ofPickering pass a bylaw to nmend its Word Boundaries consistent with one of the three recommendations set out in the Final Report (Jrcpared by lhc Consultoot. By signing this petition, I hereby acknowledge that this petition will become a public document at the City of Pickering and that all information contained in it will be subject to the scrutiny of the City, and will be pub­ licly available. Any person signing this petition is an elector that was eligible to have voted in the October 2018 Municipal Election. Attachment #2 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 ________________________ Attachment #1 to CLK 03-21 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review City of Pickering Final Report 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 Summary of Preliminary Options - Interim Ward Attachment #2 to CLK 03-21 Boundary Report (December 2020) 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. Preliminary Option 1 (3-Ward Option 1) 2020 Optimal 2030 Optimal Ward #1 Variance VariancePopulationRange1Population Range Preliminary Option 1 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 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Watson & Associates Note: Numbers have been rounded Economists Ltd. in association with Dr. Robert Williams 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 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 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 Dr. Robert WilliamsDr. Robert Williams 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