HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLK 01-21 Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CLK 01-21
Date: January 4, 2021
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
- Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
That Report CLK 01-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Interim Report, from Watson &
Associates Economist Ltd., be received for information.
Executive Summary: Pickering’s Ward Boundary Review is currently underway and this
Report serves to provide an Interim Report from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., the
Consultants for the Review, which includes background information and preliminary options and
concepts for the City’s ward boundaries and Council composition. The complete Interim Report is
included as Attachment #1 to CLK 01-21 and is provided for information.
An important facet of the Ward Boundary Review to date has been public consultation. On July
27, 2020, through Resolution # 381/20, Council adopted revised Terms of Reference for the
approved Ward Boundary Review, to allow the use of electronic platforms for Phase 1 of the
Review’s public engagement. The need to move to such electronic platforms was due to the
Provincial Orders and restrictions in place arising from COVID-19. The use of electronic platforms
allowed the Review to continue so that any changes to the City’s ward boundaries could be in
place by the legislated timeframes and for the 2022 Municipal Election.
A robust communication plan commenced on September 23, 2020 and four Virtual Open Houses
were conducted in October. To complement the open houses, a survey was launched on October
7, 2020 and available until November 2, 2020. The data collected from the survey and the open
houses, along with population and GIS data, have been used to inform the Interim Report from
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Attachment #1).
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this Interim Report
and any funds required to move forward with the Review have been previously approved by
Council.
Discussion: At the Council meeting of November 13, 2017, through Resolution #
365/17, Council approved proposal RFP-10-2017, to engage the consulting services of Watson &
Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams, to conduct the ward
boundary review prior to the 2022 Municipal Election. That work was suspended pending a
CLK 01-21 January 4, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Page 2
decision on the Regional Government Review that was undertaken by the Province of Ontario in
mid-2019. As there were no implications to the City’s existing geographic boundaries from the
Provincial Review, City staff began to move forward with the project and presented the Terms of
Reference which were adopted by Council, through Resolution #187/19, at the December 16,
2019 Council Meeting.
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the State of Emergency declared by the Province of Ontario
on March 17, 2020, and the City of Pickering on March 24, 2020, the project was once again
suspended.
In order for the Ward Boundary Review to be completed and take effect for the 2022 Municipal
Election, the By-law to amend the City’s Wards must be adopted and in full force and effect by
December 31, 2021. Under the Municipal Act, there is also a 45 day appeal period once the By-
law is adopted by Council. With these timeframes in mind, it is necessary to complete the Ward
Boundary Review, and potentially adopt a Ward Boundary By-law, by mid-2021 so that there is
time to complete all necessary work associated with any ward changes that will impact various
aspects of the 2022 Municipal Election.
To facilitate moving forward with the Review during the pandemic, electronic media and virtual
opens houses were used to replace the typical in-person engagement that would have taken
place outside of a pandemic. With the restrictions in place for COVID-19, it was paramount to
utilize as many media as possible, both electronic and traditional, to promote and engage the
public during Phase 1 of the public consultation process. This included a robust communication
plan and virtual open houses using the Microsoft Teams platform which was fully facilitated by the
Consultants. The following provides a list of the various media and efforts used to engage the
public, and further details are included in the Interim Report provided by Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. (Attachment #1):
• Media release to kick-off Phase 1
• E-blasts through Corporate Communications and the City’s distribution lists
• Dedicated Webpage advertised on all print and digital media
• Whiteboard Animation Video to provide education on what a Ward Boundary Review
entails
• Brain Teaser Survey to provide a fun interactive tool to engage citizens
• Virtual Public Open Houses – 4 in total, held on October 7th and 15th at 2:00 pm and 7:00
pm
• Online and paper surveys (available at City Hall and Pickering Public Library – see
Attachment #2)
• Print newspaper advertisements on September 14th, 21st, and 28th to promote the webpage,
survey and virtual open houses
• Use of the Pickering Public Library website to promote the Review and display of a large
floor banner in the Central Library lobby
• Use of webpage banners on the City’s website homepage
• Regular posts and promotion of the Review on all City social media platforms (Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram)
• Displays on all 4 of the City’s digital signs from September 15 to October 30, 2020
CLK 01-21 January 4, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Page 3
•Promotion at the October Pickering Farmer’s Market
•Flyer inserts in 300 curbside shred giveaway bags
•Distribution of approximately 33,800 rack cards in the Interim Tax Bills (mailed to residents
in November/December 2020 and January/February 2021)
The Interim Report by Watson & Associates (Attachment #1) will be posted on the City’s
dedicated Ward Boundary Review webpage following the Executive Committee Meeting and
Phase 2 of public engagement will commence in February/March of 2021. Phase 2 will provide
ward boundary and Council composition options to the public who will have an opportunity to
comment and ask questions. Once all feedback from Phase 2 has been collected, a
recommendation on the ward boundaries and Council composition will be brought forward to the
Executive Committee in May for approval with subsequent adoption of a by-law (if applicable)
before summer recess.
This report is provided for Council’s information as the Ward Boundary Review enters Phase 2.
Attachments:
1.Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2.Ward Boundary Review Phase 1 Survey
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni
City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
SC:sc
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
December, 2020 info@watsonecon.ca
In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams
2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review
City of Pickering
________________________
Interim Report
Attachment #1 to Report CLK 01-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table of Contents
Page
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Objective .................................................................................................. 1
3. Project Structure and Timeline .......................................................................... 2
4. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering ................ 3
4.1 Existing Population and Structure .............................................................. 3
4.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 ................................................ 4
5. Public Consultation ............................................................................................ 6
6. What We Heard ................................................................................................... 7
7. Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure ........................................................... 13
7.1 Representation by Population .................................................................. 14
7.2 Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods .................... 15
7.3 Current and Future Population Trends..................................................... 17
7.4 Physical Features as Natural Boundaries ................................................ 18
7.5 Effective Representation .......................................................................... 19
8. Alternative Ward Boundary Options ............................................................... 21
8.1 Evaluation Summary ................................................................................ 43
8.2 Further Considerations ............................................................................ 44
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
1. Background
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.).
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:
• What guiding principles will be observed in the design of the wards?
• Is it appropriate to consider changing the composition (size) of Council as part of
the same review?
• Is it appropriate to consider dissolving the wards to elect councillors at-large (in
what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls a “general vote” system)?
This review is premised on the democratic expectation that municipal representation in
Pickering would be effective, equitable, and an accurate reflection of the contemporary
distribution of communities and people across the City.
2. Study Objective
The project has a number of key objectives:
• Develop a clear understanding of the present ward system, including its origins
and operations as a system of representation;
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present ward system on the basis
of guiding principles adopted for the study;
• Develop and conduct an appropriate consultation process in accordance with
Pickering’s public engagement practices during the coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) public health emergency to ensure community support for the review and its
outcome;
• Prepare population projections for the development and evaluation of alternative
electoral structures for the 2022, 2026, and 2030 municipal elections; and
• 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.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
In October 2020, the Consultant Team prepared a Discussion Paper that set out:
• The basic electoral arrangements in Pickering;
• Council’s legislative authority to modify electoral arrangements in the City;
• A sketch of potential modifications open to Council (the size of Council, the
method of election for councillors, alternative ward configurations); and
• Guiding principles that could be considered by a municipality when establishing
or modifying its ward system.1
The purpose of this Interim Report is to provide:
• A summary of the work completed to date;
• A summary of the information received from the public engagement sessions and
tools, such as the survey and website; and
• A series of initial ward boundary options for consideration.
After the release of this report, the public will once again be engaged to provide
feedback on each alternative model.
3. Project Structure and Timeline
Council adopted the terms of reference for the W.B.R. in December 2019. Work
completed to-date includes:
• Research and data compilation;
• Interviews with councillors, the Mayor, and municipal staff; and
• Public consultation on the existing ward structure.
Interviews with staff and Council, and meetings with the Clerk’s office and other staff
concerning this study, were initially conducted in person but were suspended in March
2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following public health guidelines on
gatherings, the Consultant Team conducted the initial round of public consultation (four
sessions) electronically.
1 https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/WBR/Pickering-2020-Ward-Boundary-
Review-Discussion-Paper.pdf
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
4. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the
City of Pickering
As previously discussed, a basic premise of representative democracy in Canada is the
notion 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 (both South
Urban Lands and Seaton Lands) population growth over the next decade and beyond.
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 of 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.
4.1 Existing Population and Structure
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
4-1. As shown, the South Urban Lands account for the majority of population, that is
approximately 93% of the current population (93,000), and is anticipated to continue to
grow.
1 Reflects a mid-2020 population estimate and includes Census undercount of
approximately 4.0%.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 4-1: 2020 Population by Community
4.2 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), and site plan applications.
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%. A majority 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
approximately 38,200 persons.2 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 4-2.
1 City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019).
2 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Geographic Location 2020 Population1
South Urban Lands 93,000
Seaton Lands 2,500
Remaining Rural 4,400
Total 99,900
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020.
1 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 4-2: Population Growth, 2020 to 2030
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.
The Seaton urban neighbourhood is currently (2020) home to approximately 800
housing units and 2,300 people. It is anticipated that this area will grow by more than
13,000 units over the ten-year horizon, with approximately 56% (7,250) of those units
being added by 2024. This rapid growth over the next five-year time horizon is
equivalent to adding approximately 21,000 persons, similar to incorporating the current
population of the Townships of Scugog or Uxbridge, into Pickering. The outcome will be
that these central rural lands will be converted into a predominantly urban landscape.1
Figure 4-1: Population Growth by Area, 2020 to 2024
1 Source: City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019).
Population figures exclude the Census undercount.
Geographic Location 2020
Population1
2030
Population1
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
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020.
1 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
5. Public Consultation
The W.B.R. incorporated a public engagement component that was delivered virtually
and designed to:
• Inform residents of Pickering about the reason for the W.B.R. and the key factors
that were considered in the review; and
• Engage the residents in a manner that provides valuable input to the evaluation
of the existing ward structure and development of alternative ward boundaries.
Following public health guidelines put in place following the COVID -19 outbreak, four
public open houses were conducted on October 7 and October 15, 2020 with two virtual
consultation sessions each day. The Consultant Team’s presentation and other
information about the review, including the audio recording of the Virtual Public Open
Houses, are available on the City’s website:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx
Through the public consultation sessions, a survey, and the project website’s online
comment/feedback form, participants were invited to provide their input/opinions with
respect to the following:
• Existing Ward Structure – Strengths and weaknesses of the current ward
structure.
• Guiding Principles – Which guiding principles should be given the greatest
priority in the development of ward boundaries?
The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are
reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the preliminary set of
ward options. While public input from consultation provides valuable insight into the
review, it is not relied on exclusively. The Consultant Team utilized the public input in
conjunction with its professional expertise and experience in W.B.R.s, along with best
practices, to develop the preliminary options presented herein. The public will have
another opportunity in the near future to comment on alternative ward system options.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
6. What We Heard
As discussed above, the Consultant Team has solicited feedback from staff, Council,
and the public in the City of Pickering through three main avenues:
• Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff;
• Four virtual public engagement sessions; and
• A survey and engagement website where comments were collected.
There was a moderate level of public participation in the W.B.R. public consultation
process. Attendance at the public engagement sessions averaged approximately five
persons per session. Each open house engagement session was done on an online
video call-in platform where residents had the ability to sign in using their computers
through the internet or, if technology or internet was a concern, there was also the
option to call in (toll free) via telephone. A presentation and informational video were
shown, followed by a question-and-answer session and discussions. Participants had
the option to ask questions or leave comments either verbally or through the written
chat feature. The open houses were advertised by the City through various means
including the website, signage, and notices. For example, the City’s four digital signs
were used to help advertise the W.B.R. between September 15 and October 30, 2020.
In addition to the public information sessions, there are a number of resources available
on the aforementioned web page dedicated to this W.B.R. process. Between July and
October, there were almost 2,400 unique views of the W.B.R. website. The City’s social
media presence was also used to raise awareness of the project and advertise
important dates and events (see Figure 6-1). There were approximately 13 Twitter
posts (tweets) between September and October reaching more than 12,500 people and
those tweets were retweeted multiple times. There were also 13 Facebook posts
reaching more than 20,500 people as well as Instagram posts and stories, all reaching
thousands of residents. The online survey received 74 responses and asked questions
ranging from the strengths and weaknesses of Pickering’s wards to thoughts on the
guiding principles framing this study.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 6-1: City of Pickering W.B.R. Survey Page
Through each avenue, the Consultant Team has heard a number of consistent and
important points about the current ward system and the principles used to guide this
W.B.R.
1. Those living in Pickering felt strongly that the existing ward system suffers from
both population imbalances as well as underrepresentation of certain
communities, making it difficult to achieve effective representation. Residents
were also concerned with how the significant growth expected in Pickering would
be integrated into the existing ward boundaries. In particular, the Consultant
Team heard about similar perspectives regarding the challenges in Ward 3
because of its geographic size, its existing and growing population, and the mix
of residents and communities.
2. There are strong rural and agricultural interests and many well-established
hamlets that are not specifically represented on Council. While the Consultant
Team has been told the current councillors do an admirable job representing
both rural and urban parts of Ward 3, it is not a foregone conclusion that the
same would necessarily hold true for future Councils. Wards are not built around
incumbent officeholders. There were responses in the survey that indicated
there are “two distinct Pickerings, one rural and one urban. The issues are vastly
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
different. North Pickering deserves its own representation,” and another resident
also said, “Create a new north Pickering ward.” The rural and urban issues,
however, are further complicated by two main issues. Firstly, the existing rural
portion of Pickering is sparsely populated, making it difficult to create a rural ward
while still achieving any type of reasonable population parity . Secondly, a
significant part of Pickering’s existing rural area (most of the area south of
Highway 407) is projected to grow significantly over the next five to ten years,
transforming into a dense urban area with significant housing and employment.
3. The role of Regional Councillors is not always well known to some members of
the community. Having Regional Councillors attached to a specific location (that
is, to specific wards) has proven helpful and has allowed residents a more direct
connection to those representing them. Regional Councillors are also strong
advocates for their wards on both the Local and Regional Councils and ease the
workload of Local Councillors. This W.B.R. cannot make any recommendations
on the number of Regional Councillors,1F
1 but there are indications that Pickering
has been well served by having Regional Councillors attached to wards.
4. Adding wards is not explicitly in the mandate of this W.B.R. The Consultant
Team, however, has heard that adding extra voices to the Council table may be
prudent in the future to contribute to the democratic needs of the community.
There were multiple mentions in the survey suggesting that there are too few
representatives given the present population of Pickering, let alone the future
population. Some quotes from residents included, “Council increases should be
directly related to population increases” and, “As the population increases, there
should be more representation and access to our municipal officials.” The
population in the City is projected to increase by more than 58,000 people over
the next ten years with a significant portion of that growth occurring in a
concentrated area (the Seaton Lands). Residents, when asked if the number of
councillors should be increased, were largely split over the issue with 46%
responding “yes” and 54% “no” (Figure 6-2).
1 The authority to adjust the allocation of Regional Council seats is assigned to the
Regional Council not to lower-tier municipalities like Pickering. Municipal Act, 2001,
section 218. Durham Regional Council has affirmed that Pickering will elect three
Regional Councillors in 2022.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 6-2: Survey Results – Should the Number of Councillors be Increased?
Given councillors in Pickering are part-time, the cost to add councillors would be
somewhat modest in relation to the City’s overall budget and could increase the
quality of representation across the community. It is important to note, however,
that more than half the City felt that the number of councillors was adequate and
a survey respondent stated, “Our taxes are too high. We cannot afford more
politicians. I think you should even out to balance the number of residents in
each ward.”
A ward system with additional wards may be reasonable to consider as an
alternative to the current model. Given the Consultant Team has heard the
benefits of having Regional Councillors attached to specific wards, it may make
sense to consider additional wards in even numbers so that each Regional
Councillor can represent an equal number of wards on Pickering Council.
5. In the survey conducted primarily in September and October of 2020,
respondents were encouraged to rank the guiding principles they believed should
be given the greatest priority during the W.B.R. Respondents had the choice of
ranking each of the five guiding principles as “High Priority,” “Medium Priority,”
and “Low Priority.” Of the five guiding principles (described in the Discussion
Paper and below), the survey found strongest support for effective representation
(63% of votes were of high priority). Effective representation is largely
dependent on the other guiding principles being achieved and, when analyzing
Yes
46%No
54%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
responses in the survey, there was a strong feeling that effective representation
was related to a better balancing of the existing ward population disparities. One
resident mentioned that, “Ward 3 is the largest ward and with the new homes on
Taunton, it will have too many residents.” Multiple responses in the survey
regarding the current weaknesses of the existing wards referenced “population
inequity” and “unbalanced representation.”
Representation by population and current and future population trends also
scored high with residents in terms of their priority, reflecting the importance that
future population growth will play in any ward boundary design. While future
population growth and population parity are certainly noted as priorities that
should be given significant consideration by the survey respondents, protection
of communities of interest was also noted as an important priority. Nearly half
the respondents (47%) ranked it as a principle that should be given a medium
priority and based on the survey’s overall ranking of priorities, it was tied for third
most important guiding principle with current and future population trends. There
were various responses in the survey highlighting the importance of Pickering’s
unique rural hamlets and communities. For example, one resident noted that,
“Ward 3 is a strange ward…mixing urban with rural, in a very large geographic
area” and another resident mentioned that their “ward is disproportionately
represented by the urban southern residents. Claremont and the rural lands
north of Taunton Rd. do not receive the attention they deserve.”
It is difficult to say that any one of the principles is necessarily more important
than another and they may occasionally conflict with one another. Getting a
sense of the priority the community places on these principles, aids in the work of
the W.B.R. and the consideration and design of new ward reconfigurations.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 6-3: Priority Assigned to Guiding Principles
6. Each of Pickering’s three wards was fairly well represented by survey
respondents – 33% came from Ward 1, 24% from Ward 2, 27% from Ward 3,
and 16% of respondents were unsure of which ward they reside in. It should be
noted that there is some difference when the survey results are broken down by
ward. Those in Ward 2 were less inclined to value representation by population
as highly as a guiding principle. Only 33% of the responses from Ward 2
selected representation by population as a top priority, compared to 50% in Ward
1, and 46% in Ward 3. This result may indicate dissatisfaction with Ward 2’s
current boundary, since it is currently comprised of two components that are only
loosely connected. This is corroborated by the preference rankings for protection
of communities of interest, in which respondents from Ward 2 indicate a greater
preference for that principle than respondents from other wards – 45% of
respondents from Ward 2 ranked it as a High Priority, compared to 30% in Ward
1 and 38% in Ward 3. Another notable difference is how respondents from Ward
1 ranked current and future population trends compared to other wards – it was
ranked as a High Priority by 56% of respondents from Ward 2 and by 46% from
Ward 3, but only 20% of those residing in Ward 1 ranked it as a High Priority. It
is unclear what the cause for this discrepancy might be, but it should be noted
that when splitting the responses by ward the sample sizes are small, which
limits the conclusiveness of findings at the ward level.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
7. Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure
The survey conducted as part of the initial phase of public c onsultation also asked
respondents to assess the current wards in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.
These responses can be used to add depth to the preliminary evaluation of the existing
ward structure included in the Discussion Paper that addressed the wards in terms of
the guiding principles. The current wards are presented in Figure 7-1 for reference
purposes.
Figure 7-1: Existing Ward Structure
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
7.1 Representation by Population
The objective of population parity (every councillor generally representing an equal
number of constituents within his or her respective ward) is the primary goal of a n
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” s ize.
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 -) indicates that its population is greater than 25%
above or below the optimal ward size. The adoption of a 25% maximum variation is
based on federal redistribution legislation and is widely applied in municipalities like
Pickering that include both urban and rural areas. An example of optimal sizes for a
three-ward system for the 2020 and 2030 populations is shown below in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: 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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Based on the City’s estimated overall 2020 population (99,920), the optimal population
size for a ward in a three-ward system in Pickering would be 33,307.2F
1
Table 7-2: Estimated Population by Existing Ward, 2020
Ward
Estimated
Population
20201
Variance
1 30,440 0.91 O -
2 22,550 0.68 OR -
3 46,940 1.41 OR+
Total 99,920 Optimal 33,307
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Population includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Population data suggests two wards are below the optimal range of variance and one
ward is above the acceptable range of variation. None of the wards can be considered
to fall within what is referred to as the “optimal” range, that is, within 5% on either side of
optimal.
Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents,
the present wards fail to adhere to the representation by population principle.
7.2 Protection of Communities of Interest and
Neighbourhoods
The first principle is based on the number of people who reside in the City, but people
live in a neighbourhood or community that is the most identifia ble geographic point in
most people’s lives: it is where they make their home. More importantly, the
responsibilities of the City are also closely associated with where people live, such as
roads and their maintenance, the utilities that are connected to or associated with their
dwelling, and the myriad of social, cultural, environmental, and recreational services are
often based on residential communities. Even municipal taxation is inextricably linked
to one’s dwelling. Identifying such communities comes from a recognition that
1 Population and growth trends for Pickering are included in the Discussion Paper,
pages 11 to 13.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
geographic location brings shared perspectives that the representational process should
seek to reflect.
Care should be taken to ensure communities of interest remain intact during the design
of ward boundaries. Such communities represent social and economic groups that may
have deep historical roots, but they can also be social, economic , or religious in nature,
depending on the history and composition of the municipality in question.
This principle addresses two perspectives: what is divided by ward boundaries , and
what is joined together? The first priority is that communities ought not to be divided
internally; as a rule, lines are drawn around communities, not through them. Secondly,
as far as possible wards should be cohesive units composed of areas with common
interests related to representation, not just contrived arithmetic divisions of the City.
Wards should have a “natural” feel to those that live within them, meaning that they
should have established internal communication and transportation linkages and
boundaries should be drawn taking existing connections into mind. This is done to
avoid creating wards that combine communities with dissimilar interests and no obvious
patterns of interaction.
Pickering’s urban settlement area contains several distinctive neighbourhoods located
primarily in Wards 1 and 2, but more importantly also in Ward 3. The Bay Ridges and
West Shore neighbourhoods are placed in two separate wards on either side of
Frenchman’s Bay, even though both are isolated from the remainder of their own ward
by the multi-lane Highway 401 and two Canadian National Railway (C.N.R.) lines,
making for a tenuous connection between the two parts of Wards 1 and 2. North of the
401, a recognized urban neighbourhood on either side of Fairport Road (Dunbarton) is
divided, while two other urban areas (east of Liverpool Road and west of Rosebank
Road) are split from adjacent neighbourhoods and placed in the same ward as each
other, even though they are not contiguous and share few demographic similarities. All
told, the population in the urban settlement area of Pickering may have originally been
divided internally to address the goal of population parity, but is grouped in a fashion
that makes it difficult to claim that the wards constitute coherent electoral units.
The majority of Pickering’s geography is located in Ward 3; much of Ward 3 is an active
agricultural area dotted with numerous hamlets that can be differentiated from the urban
area by its significantly lower population density and distinctive social and economic
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
characteristics. It is also the area where most future residential developments will occur
in Pickering (namely in Seaton). We understand that in 1974 the areas on the eastern
and western sides of the ward south of Finch Avenue were largely rural and it would
have been appropriate to place them in Ward 3. Today that is not the case and Ward 3
thus includes not only rural Pickering but significant existing urban communities, as well
as the rapidly developing new communities along the Brock Road corridor. All of this
means this ward is also not a coherent electoral unit.
A significant proportion of the survey comments highlighted the impact of having
communities from north and south in the same ward (sometimes seen as a rural -urban
mix).
It is difficult to argue that the current ward system reflects communities in Pickering in
an equitable way and may hinder giving a voice to a distinctive part of Pickering.
7.3 Current and Future Population Trends
The composition of Pickering’s wards should adequately accommodate for future
growth and population shifts to maintain the representation by population principle over
time. Pickering is, and has been, growing quite rapidly which spurred the need for a
W.B.R. now. This principle seeks to ensure that a ward design does not merely “catch
up” with such changes, but addresses the City’s future by giving some weight to
projected population growth within the City. In other words, it encourages the design of
wards that will not be out-of-date the day after they are adopted.
Although there are restrictions placed upon future residential development through the
provincial growth plan, which directs the development to designated areas of Pickering,
the City’s population is forecast to grow by more than 50% over the next ten years (see
the Discussion Paper, page 16, and section 4.2 above). Although some of that growth
will occur in the City Centre neighbourhood, most will occur in Seaton and other areas
in Ward 3, such as Duffin Heights and Brock Ridge.
The population in the present Ward 3 already exceeds that of Ward 1 and Ward 2. The
development of Seaton means that future population growth will not correct this
imbalance and will push that difference further away from parity, although forecast
growth in the City Centre neighbourhood will offset some of the growth in Seaton.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents,
the present wards are unlikely to ensure that the representation by population principle
can be sustained over the next decade.
Table 7-3: Existing Wards Population Distribution, 2020 and 2030
7.4 Physical Features as Natural Boundaries
Ward boundaries should be easily recognizable and take advantage of natural and built
geographic features. Many of these features already tend to separate communities
within the City, which usually explains their historical use as boundary lines between
existing wards.
Ward boundaries in Pickering are largely based on transportation corridors; the only
exception is a notional line across Frenchman’s Bay from the C.N.R. right-of-way to the
sandspit that separates the bay from Lake Ontario. Three of the transportation features,
however, are not used consistently: a C.N.R. right-of-way serves as a boundary
between the Toronto boundary and Rosebank Road but not further east; a Cana dian
Pacific Railway (C.P.R.) right-of-way serves as a ward boundary but only between
Rosebank and Fairport Roads; and Highway 401 is the ward boundary between the
Ajax boundary and Liverpool Road but not further west. These are largely visible
boundaries within the community, but each appears to be a “natural” boundary in one
part of the City but not in another.
Two of the three north-south ward boundaries (along Rosebank and Liverpool Roads)
are significant arterial roadways that divide the neighbourhood s on either side of the
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 30,440 0.91 O-33,390 0.63 OR-
Ward 2 22,550 0.68 OR-28,120 0.53 OR-
Ward 3 46,940 1.41 OR+96,460 1.83 OR+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
1 Population includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Existing Wards
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
road. This is much less so with Fairport Road, which is more of a neighbourhood street
than a divider.
On the whole, the boundaries of the existing wards fall short of meeting the expectation
of “natural” boundaries in the sense of being easily identifiable and consistent.
7.5 Effective Representation
As stated above, the four principles are subject to the overarching principle of “effective
representation,” meaning that each resident should have comparable access to an
elected representative and each councillor should speak on behalf of an equal number
of residents. Deviations from population parity can be justified if they contribute to more
effective representation.
As noted earlier, effective representation is not based on the performance of incumbent
councillors. It is, rather, a concept that is premised on the on-going relationship
between residents and elected officials – not just on the way the resident is “counted”
on election day, although that is an important component of a fair system of
representation. Are the individual wards plausible and coherent units of representation?
Are they drawn in such a way that representatives can readily play the role expected of
them? Do they provide equitable (that is, fair) access to councillors for all residents of
the municipality?
The combination of accelerating population imbalances, the mix of neighbourhoods and
communities within the wards, and the extreme size of Ward 3 compared to the other
two wards all suggest that the present wards in Pickering do not contribute to effective
representation. One significant factor underpinning these undeniable limitations is the
challenge of reflecting the increasing complexity of the City in only three wards.
It bears repeating that this principle is not directed at the way present members of
Pickering Council perform their responsibilities, but assesses the features of the
electoral system and how they enhance or restrict the capacity of residents to be
represented fairly at election time and throughout the term of the Counc il. In most
ways, the present ward system in Pickering is an obstacle to overcome rather than a
contribution to effective representation.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
In our Discussion Paper we provided an initial evaluation of the current ward system.
For the most part, the current arrangements failed to meet the principles in place for the
W.B.R. We have since taken the feedback received through our various engagement
activities and again, for the most part, members of the public have confirmed many of
our initial perceptions. The current system largely fails to meet the W.B.R. principles
and cannot be said to serve the residents of the City of Pickering well.
Figure 7-2: Present Pickering Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Current
Ward Structure
Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population
No
One ward is outside the acceptable
range of variation and two wards are
below optimal.
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
One ward is outside the acceptable
range of variation and two wards are
below optimal.
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 predominantly urban
population.
Meets Requirements of Guiding Principle?
Yes Largely successful Partially successful No
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
8. Alternative Ward Boundary Options
The evaluation of the current ward system in Pickering suggests that it largely fails
when evaluated against the guiding principles for this review. Council could still choose
to retain the status quo by turning down all recommended options for an alternative
ward configuration. That decision, however, could result in a petition submitted u nder
section 223 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The analysis presented here suggests that it
could be difficult for the City to defend the existing ward system before LPAT.
If Council decides to change the ward boundary system, what would alternatives look
like? The consultants have prepared 4 preliminary options examining possible ward re-
configurations under the existing 3-ward system. Keeping the identifiable communities
of interest intact, creating wards with roughly equal populations and providing for
effective representation throughout Pickering poses a significant challenge, given the
large geography and population concentration discussed above. In response to this
challenge, we have included additional alternative ward boundary configurations using
four-, five- and six-ward formats. The preliminary options included herein are concepts
intended to highlight the various configurations available in relation to the guiding
principles and aforementioned issues.
Preliminary Option 1:
This is 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. At
present, both 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 with the proposed Ward 3
along Concession Road 3 is used. 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 the proposed ward is expected to triple in size, primarily associated with
Seaton.
The 2020 population distribution includes 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 8-1 shows, it
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
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.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 8-1: Preliminary Option 1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-1: Preliminary Option 1 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-2: Preliminary Option 1 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population
Partially
successful
Two wards are outside the
acceptable range of variation, one
ward is at optimal size.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Partially
successful
Present urban area plausible
groupings of neighbourhoods; third
ward is a mix of urban and rural
communities.
Current and Future
Population Trends
Largely
successful
Two wards are narrowly within the
acceptable range of variation, one
ward is at optimal size.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features
serve as boundaries.
Effective Representation Partially
successful
Effective representation hindered by
uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with predominantly urban
population.
Preliminary Option 2:
Preliminary Option 2 provides a way to align the three wards in a manner that achieves
the representation by population principle for the 2022 municipal election. In terms of
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
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 sam e
ward as rural Pickering. Preliminary Option 2 maintains population parity as the
population grows in Pickering over the next three elections – but only in the two
proposed southern wards. The drawback of this Preliminary Option is that the
population growth in proposed Ward 3 (forecast to be around 40,000) 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, Preliminary Option 2 is premised on “catching up” with the population
growth since 1982 to arrive at population parity across the three wards but not on
preparing for growth. This is a legitimate priority for the 2020/2021 W.B.R. but will likely
mean that the boundaries will need to be reviewed again as the Seaton neighbourhood
closes in on buildout.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 8-3: Preliminary Option 2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-2: Preliminary Option 2 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-4: Preliminary Option 2 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population Yes
One ward is optimal, two wards
are well within the acceptable
range.
Protection of
Communities of
Interest and
Neighbourhoods
Partially successful
Present urban area plausible
groupings of neighbourhoods; third
ward is a mix of urban and rural
communities.
Current and Future
Population Trends No
One ward is outside the
acceptable range of variation and
two wards are below optimal.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Largely successful
Boundary between two proposed
wards uses less visible roadways
west of Whites Road.
Effective
Representation Largely successful
Effective representation is largely
achieved for 2022 but is hindered
by the area of one ward and its
large population in 2030.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Preliminary Option 3:
The ultimate rationale for this Preliminary Option 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 representin g 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.
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 Preliminary Option 3 is a plausible alternative.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 8-5: Preliminary Option 3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-3: Preliminary Option 3 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-6: Preliminary Option 3 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population
Partially
successful
All wards are within the acceptable
range of variation, one ward is at
optimal size.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Partially
successful
Present urban area plausible
groupings of neighbourhoods; third
ward is a mix of urban and rural
communities.
Current and Future
Population Trends
Largely
successful
Two wards are narrowly within the
acceptable range of variation, one
ward is above the acceptable range
of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features
serve as boundaries.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is hindered
by the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with significant urban
population.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Preliminary Option 4:
In this Option, the northern boundary line for the proposed Ward 1 and Ward 2 west of
West Duffins Creek is Finch Avenue. The northern boundary of the proposed Ward 2
follows Concession 3 and the western boundary north of Finch Avenue is the West
Duffins Creek. The boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 2 south of Finch
Avenue is located along Dixie Road north of Highway 401 and follows the existing
notional boundary across Frenchman’s Bay to the south of Highway 401. These are all
clear boundary lines.
Expanding the proposed Ward 1 eastward makes it a little more compact but actually
larger by population than in Preliminary Option 1; however, it is expected to achieve
better population parity in the longer term because of the impact of the growth in other
parts of the City. The proposed Ward 2 recognizes the community of interest of the
downtown area that includes the central business district, a significant concentration of
employment and cultural institutions that are components of the urban fabric of
Pickering, rather than being located in the present Ward 3 along with the City’s
extensive rural territory. Over the three-election cycle, these two wards will grow into
parity with one another, despite the inclusion of the Brock Road corridor in the prop osed
Ward 2.
As in the present ward system, some urban neighbourhoods are included in the
proposed third ward, a mix of the growing Duffin Heights neighbourhood and the more
established subdivisions in the Liverpool neighbourhood. Despite the transfer of the
heavily populated eastern and western urban neighbourhoods that currently bracket
Wards 1 and 2 into the proposed Ward 3, the proposed Ward 3 is still well short of the
acceptable range of variation in 2020. This is, however, where another rationale for this
Option becomes clear: by 2030, the proposed Ward 3 will be able to absorb the 40,000
people expected to eventually move into the Seaton development, yet can remain within
the acceptable range of variation for the City.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 32
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Figure 8-7: Preliminary Option 4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 33
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-4: Preliminary Option 4 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-8: Preliminary Option 4 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population Partially successful
Two wards are outside the
acceptable range of variation, one
ward is just above the optimal size.
Protection of
Communities of
Interest and
Neighbourhoods
Partially successful
Present urban area plausible
groupings of neighbourhoods; third
ward is a mix of urban and rural
communities.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
Two wards are within the optimal
range, one ward is just below the
optimal size.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes Only two lines used, both are clear
and straight.
Effective
Representation Largely successful
Effective representation is largely
achieved for 2030 but is less
successful in the shorter term.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 34
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Further Preliminary Options: Four-, Five- and Six-Ward Models
Pickering’s Council has included three local councillors since the municipality was
created in 1974 when the population was less than 40,000 people. This report has
repeatedly found that achieving the primary guiding principles (representation by
population, protection of communities of interest, and current and future population
trends) to elect three councillors has required designs that seriously compromise one or
more of them, often impacting the objective of achieving effective representation. We
believe that there are Preliminary Options outlined in this report than can bring more
effective representation (as understood in the Carter decision) to the residents of
Pickering, but in each case requiring a deliberate foregoing of some of the guiding
principles to achieve another.
The reasons for this outcome are numerous: Pickering’s present population is
concentrated in the southern urban neighbourhoods while only about 5% of the
population resides in the defined rural area that encompasses about two-thirds of the
land mass.
Within ten years, however, around 40,000 people will live in the Seaton neighbourhoods
– as many people as lived in Pickering when the three -ward system was created. As
mentioned above in section 4.2, Seaton is expected to grow rapidly, and this growth is
anticipated to start development within the next five-year period. By 2024, Seaton is
expected to grow from 2,300 people to over 23,500 people. Over the next five-year
period, 76% of the City’s population growth is to be accommodated within the Seaton
Lands, while 24% is to be accommodated within the South Urban Lands. Over the ten-
year period, 66% of the population growth is expected within Seaton while 33% is
anticipated in the South Urban Lands.
The projected population growth in the Seaton neighborhoods is therefore a number
that is approximately twice that of the present population of municipalities in Durham
Region such as Scugog and Uxbridge. Each of those municipalities elects councillors in
five wards, yet this review has been working to incorporate this very large new
population cluster into a single ward alongside the existing population and clearly at the
expense of the rural community of interest.
On an overall basis, as shown in Figure 8-9, Pickering has the same size council as five
of the other municipalities in Durham Region; however, it is much larger in population
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 35
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
than three of them (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge). It is also worthwhile mentioning that,
while Pickering and Clarington both have similar-sized populations and seven-member
Councils, Clarington actually has four wards and four local councillors but one less
Regional Councillor than Pickering. The Town of Ajax has the same council
configuration as Pickering, albeit with a larger population (~120,000, 2016 Census).
The Town of Whitby, similar in size to Ajax, has four Local Councillors and four
Regional Councillors for a total Council size of nine with the Mayor. Oshawa, Durham’s
most populous municipality (~160,000, 2016 Census) has a Council size of 11 with the
Mayor and five Local and five Regional Councillors elected in five wards. While Council
size varies throughout the Province and also within Durham Region, the City of
Pickering’s population will be more in-line with the Towns of Whitby and Ajax in the next
several years and is projected to approach the size of Oshawa over the next decade.
Figure 8-9: Region of Durham Council Composition vs. Population
While members of the present Council and many residents are reluctant to see a
change in the composition of council – often citing costs – this report has demonstrated
that there are constraints that prevent a three-ward system from providing the Pickering
community with an equitable electoral system. Those conditions are given and cannot
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Township of
Brock
City of
Oshawa
Township of
Scugog
Townshit of
Uxbridge
Town of
Whitby
Town of
Ajax
Municipality
of Clarington
City of
Pickering # of Members on Council2016 Population2016 Population Number of Members on Council
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 36
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
be treated as unimportant in designing a ward system for a City that will be home to
more than 150,000 people in about ten years. Kicking the ball down the road on the
premise that it is “too soon” or “too expensive” to make a change to the Council
structure overlooks the fact that the municipality’s population has doubled since the
present design was established and is about to grow even more. Residents are already
living in an inequitable ward configuration that this review seeks to address.
What follows are models for three Preliminary Options to elect City Councillors that
each can result in more equitable representation for the residents of Pickering by 2030
or earlier, while better reflecting the present and future communities in the City. At this
time, these are exploratory concepts of what ward systems built around a slightly larger
Council could look like. We urge the community and Council to see these as an
opportunity to show vision, to look to a future Pickering where residents will be
effectively represented through its ward configuration rather than despite it.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Preliminary Option 5: Six-Ward Model
Figure 8-10: Preliminary Option 5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-5: Preliminary Option 5 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-11: Preliminary Option 5 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No Only one proposed ward is within the
acceptable range of variation.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Yes
Urban neighbourhoods are in
plausible and coherent groupings;
Seaton and rural areas in their own
wards.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
One proposed ward is in optimal
range; others are within the
acceptable range of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features
serve as boundaries.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is achieved
for 2030 but is less successful in the
shorter term.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Preliminary Option 6: Five-Ward Model
Figure 8-12: Preliminary Option 6
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 40
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-6: Preliminary Option 6 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-13: Preliminary Option 6 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No Only one proposed ward is within the
acceptable range of variation.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Partially
successful
Urban neighbourhoods are in four
proposed wards south of Taunton
Road; Seaton and rural areas are
included in a single northern ward.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
One proposed ward is in optimal
range; others are within the
acceptable range of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries
Largely
successful
Proposed boundaries for Wards 2
and 3 are potentially confusing.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is achieved
for 2030 but is less successful in the
shorter term.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 41
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Preliminary Option 7: Four-Ward Model
Figure 8-14: Preliminary Option 7
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 42
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
Table 8-7: Preliminary Option 7 – Population by Proposed Ward
Figure 8-15: Preliminary Option 7 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No
Only one proposed ward is within the
acceptable range of variation;
proposed Ward 4 is difficult to justify
in population terms.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Partially
successful
Urban neighbourhoods are in three
proposed wards south of Taunton
Road; Seaton and rural areas are
included in a single northern ward.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
Two proposed wards are in optimal
range; two are within the acceptable
range of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features
serve as boundaries.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is achieved
for 2030 but is less successful in the
shorter term.
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
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 43
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
8.1 Evaluation Summary
Figure 8-16: Preliminary Options – Evaluation Summary
Preliminary
Option
Representation
by Population
Protection of
Communities of
Interest and
Neighbourhoods
Current
and Future
Population
Trends
Physical
Features as
Natural
Boundaries
Effective
Representation
1 Partially
successful
Partially
successful
Largely
successful Yes Partially
successful
2 Yes Partially
successful No Largely
successful
Largely
successful
3 Partially
successful
Partially
successful
Largely
successful Yes Largely
successful
4 Partially
successful
Partially
successful Yes Yes Largely
successful
5 No Yes Yes Yes Largely
successful
6 No Partially
successful Yes Largely
successful
Largely
successful
7 No Partially
successful Yes Yes Largely
successful
Meet Requirements of Guiding Principle?
Yes Largely successful Partially successful No
Higher Rating Lower Rating
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 44
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report
8.2 Further Considerations
The options presented herein are preliminary; they reflect the application of the core
principles for this review to the distribution of population and communities within
Pickering.
Designing an electoral system that will deliver effective representation to such a diverse
and growing community requires some accommodation: designs that put an emphasis
on representation by population today can hinder fair representation for residents who
will locate in the northern part of the City in the coming decade. Designs that place a
priority on grouping selected urban neighbourhoods can result in the over-
representation of those same communities around the Council table. Grouping several
distinctive communities in the same ward may systematically reduce the voice of
minorities, whether they be geographic, economic, or social.
The purpose of this report is to stimulate discussions in Pickering, to encourage
residents to “think outside the box” of representation. The options included are
deliberately called “preliminary” since the next step is to gather the perspectives of
residents on these new approaches to electing the members of their municipal Council.
1
Pickering Ward Boundary Review
905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr
Public Consultation Survey
Please return completed surveys to Pickering City Hall, Clerk’s Office, One The Esplanade,
or by email to clerks@pickering.ca. Final date to submit is October 30th, 2020.
1.Name (optional): ___________________________________________________
2.Which ward do you reside in?
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Don’t know
3.What is your postal code? (optional): ____________________
4.Pickering’s Council is comprised of seven members: a Mayor, three Regional
Councillors (one elected in each of three wards) and three City Councillors (one
elected in each of three wards).
Municipal Councils in Ontario can be composed of no fewer than five members,
one of whom is the Mayor. Pickering’s Council must also include three Regional
Councillors, as determined by Durham Regional Council in 2017.
Should the number of City Councillors be increased to provide more effective
representation in Pickering?
No
Yes
If “yes”, how many more? ________
Attachment #2 to Report CLK 01-21
2
Pickering Ward Boundary Review
905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr
Please provide reasons for your preference:
5.How would you describe your ward? Is there anything you would change?
6.Please provide your assessment of the present wards (see map at end of
survey.)
In my opinion, the strengths of
the current wards are:
In my opinion, the weaknesses
of the current wards are:
3
Pickering Ward Boundary Review
905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr
7.Five Guiding Principles will be applied in the assessment of the present wards
and in the development of alternative ward designs. Please indicate which
principles you believe should be given the greatest priority in the design of the
wards (for each principle, identify as “High Priority,” “Moderate Priority” or “Low
Priority”)
Principle High
Priority
Medium
Priority
Low
Priority
Representation by Population
Ensure that wards have reasonably equal
populations while allowing for some variation in
recognition of varied population densities across
the City.
Protection of communities of interest
Avoid fragmenting existing communities of interest
and neighbourhoods.
Current and future population trends
Consider anticipated population trends for the
2022 municipal election and beyond.
Physical features as natural boundaries
Use natural and manmade features as boundaries
to keep ward boundaries easily identifiable.
Effective representation
Evaluate the capacity of each ward to give
residents fair and effective representation in
Council decision-making.
Thank you for participating in the first phase of the Pickering Ward Boundary Review.
Personal information contained on this form is collected pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act and will be used as a part of the Ward Boundary Review. Questions about this
collection should be directed to the City Clerk, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7, 905.420.4611.
A Discussion Paper on the City of Pickering Ward Boundary and Council Composition Review and other
information on the Review is available for viewing on the municipal website at
www.pickering.ca/wbr.
4
Pickering Ward Boundary Review
905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr
Pickering Ward Boundaries